Jump to content


Ben Nelson Done.


HSKR

Recommended Posts

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for.

I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state.

Nebraska gives its electoral college votes out based on how the congressional district voted. Hence the Omaha area to Obama, and the other two went Red. Now if all sates gave them out based the same way, that would make things more interesting. More than 4 or 5 states would actually get attention. Even the huge states like California, Texas and New York get next to no attention in the general race, as they are already essentially a lock.

Link to comment

Pretty sad that we've gone from guys like Peter Hoagland, Doug Bereuter, Bob Kerrey, and Chuck Hagel, to the scum of the earth delegation. Hard to be a fan of Nelson when he's probably going to run strait through the revolving door to enrich himself after public life and had to be prodded into taking any tough votes, but Bruning will just be another partisan stooge adding to the dysfunction of congress.

Link to comment
Pretty sad that we've gone from guys like Peter Hoagland, Doug Bereuter, Bob Kerrey, and Chuck Hagel, to the scum of the earth delegation. Hard to be a fan of Nelson when he's probably going to run strait through the revolving door to enrich himself after public life and had to be prodded into taking any tough votes, but Bruning will just be another partisan stooge adding to the dysfunction of congress.

 

The best solution is campaign finance reform, to take the corporate money out of politics.

 

We need to undo Citizens United, then abolish corporate citizenship... go Bernie Sanders!

Link to comment
Pretty sad that we've gone from guys like Peter Hoagland, Doug Bereuter, Bob Kerrey, and Chuck Hagel, to the scum of the earth delegation. Hard to be a fan of Nelson when he's probably going to run strait through the revolving door to enrich himself after public life and had to be prodded into taking any tough votes, but Bruning will just be another partisan stooge adding to the dysfunction of congress.

 

The best solution is campaign finance reform, to take the corporate money out of politics.

 

We need to undo Citizens United, then abolish corporate citizenship... go Bernie Sanders!

 

So then they shouldn't have to pay taxes either, right? I'd agree with you that political contributions should only be allowed to be given by individual citizens as long as individual citizens are the only ones paying taxes as well.

Link to comment

So then they shouldn't have to pay taxes either, right?

 

I would go along with that.

 

I'd agree with you that political contributions should only be allowed to be given by individual citizens as long as individual citizens are the only ones paying taxes as well.

 

Why not legal residents too?

Link to comment

Nelson saw the writing on the wall. Democrats in this state will only enjoy broad support when they play against the party line. By supporting Obama care he further alienated the conservatives (not neccessarilly republican) who propably weren't that high on him after the last election. I myself voted for the guy in 2002, but after he essentially dismissed things like the VAT tax with asertions that clearly showed a disdain for any serious change to the tax code, I felt that he had ebraced a system that did not represent his constitunency. This election is propably lost for the Dems but by exiting early Ben preserved his image and prospects for future influence and after all, I kinda think Ben is all about Ben,

Link to comment

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for.

I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state.

 

This would matter if the goal of an election where to ganer national attention instead of proper representation.

The point of the electoral college (as I am sure most of you know) is to preserve the power of the states not the electorate. Changeing the number of senators would obviously provide for a more "fair" outcome if that is the way you view it. The men who wrote the US constitution clearly had no intention of allowing the federal seat of power to be manipulated by a majority of citizens to the detrement of the states. State power is a check on federal power as the legislature is to the executive or the judiciary to the other two (or at least that's what was clearly attempted). Sorry for the civics 101 but it often seems we look at the nuance of the quarrel and fail to see the larger picture. As to me, I like my disperpotionate representation thank you.

Link to comment

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for.

I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state.

 

This would matter if the goal of an election where to ganer national attention instead of proper representation.

The point of the electoral college (as I am sure most of you know) is to preserve the power of the states not the electorate. Changeing the number of senators would obviously provide for a more "fair" outcome if that is the way you view it. The men who wrote the US constitution clearly had no intention of allowing the federal seat of power to be manipulated by a majority of citizens to the detrement of the states. State power is a check on federal power as the legislature is to the executive or the judiciary to the other two (or at least that's what was clearly attempted). Sorry for the civics 101 but it often seems we look at the nuance of the quarrel and fail to see the larger picture. As to me, I like my disperpotionate representation thank you.

I guess I would like a Nebraska vote to weigh the same as a Florida vote. Would you explain how equally weighing votes in a presidential election would threaten the power of the states?

Link to comment
So then they shouldn't have to pay taxes either, right?

 

I would go along with that.

 

I'd agree with you that political contributions should only be allowed to be given by individual citizens as long as individual citizens are the only ones paying taxes as well.

 

Why not legal residents too?

 

I didn't mean ONLY those who paid taxes but anyone as an individual. Just saying that individuals should be the only ones paying taxes, not corporations. If we don't tax corporations and they can't use their money to buy off elections, I think they world would be a better place. We are probably in more agreement on this then we realize.

Link to comment

http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/bob-kerrey-may-jump-into-senate-race/article_932ba7f2-4f8a-5f17-a763-3b10dc402fb3.html

 

Bob Kerry, that could be interesting. I know this happens all the time but it is one thing I really don't agree with is people like Kerry running and they don't even freaking live here or haven't for a long time. At least Nelson and Johanns are actual Nebraskans.

Link to comment
I didn't mean ONLY those who paid taxes but anyone as an individual. Just saying that individuals should be the only ones paying taxes, not corporations. If we don't tax corporations and they can't use their money to buy off elections, I think they world would be a better place. We are probably in more agreement on this then we realize.

 

We probably are... however it is usually the differences that get responded to.

 

My wife is not a US citizen, she is a permanent resident. She pays taxes, knows more US history and government than most Americans, and would shame most english teachers with her knowledge of the language.

Link to comment

http://journalstar.c...10dc402fb3.html

 

Bob Kerry, that could be interesting. I know this happens all the time but it is one thing I really don't agree with is people like Kerry running and they don't even freaking live here or haven't for a long time. At least Nelson and Johanns are actual Nebraskans.

 

 

Didn’t Senator Hagel do this? I believe he lived in New York or DC for most of his adult life then moved back to Scottsbluff to run. At least Kerry (and Hagel) lived here, and Kerry served Nebraska fairly well, the one I never understood were the people who bought into the Hillary Clinton "I'm from New York" thing, that was just stupid.

Link to comment
I didn't mean ONLY those who paid taxes but anyone as an individual. Just saying that individuals should be the only ones paying taxes, not corporations. If we don't tax corporations and they can't use their money to buy off elections, I think they world would be a better place. We are probably in more agreement on this then we realize.

 

We probably are... however it is usually the differences that get responded to.

 

My wife is not a US citizen, she is a permanent resident. She pays taxes, knows more US history and government than most Americans, and would shame most english teachers with her knowledge of the language.

 

I'm just curious, and if this is personal I apoligize but why is she not interested in becomeing a citizens of the coutry in which she now resides? To be clear, I'm certainly not implying anything, just kind of intrigued.

Link to comment

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for.

I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state.

 

This would matter if the goal of an election where to ganer national attention instead of proper representation.

The point of the electoral college (as I am sure most of you know) is to preserve the power of the states not the electorate. Changeing the number of senators would obviously provide for a more "fair" outcome if that is the way you view it. The men who wrote the US constitution clearly had no intention of allowing the federal seat of power to be manipulated by a majority of citizens to the detrement of the states. State power is a check on federal power as the legislature is to the executive or the judiciary to the other two (or at least that's what was clearly attempted). Sorry for the civics 101 but it often seems we look at the nuance of the quarrel and fail to see the larger picture. As to me, I like my disperpotionate representation thank you.

I guess I would like a Nebraska vote to weigh the same as a Florida vote. Would you explain how equally weighing votes in a presidential election would threaten the power of the states?

 

Carl, you are far to educated for me to indulge myself in a primer on simple federalism. Surely you understand the relationship between state and federal government as intended by those who wrote the constitution. Of others not so informed I would clearify (in breif) that indeed the state of Nebraska and the state of Florida where intended to have equal power. The Senate (directly apppointed at the time) and the electoral college were structured such as to ensure relative equally of power between states regardless of population. Make no mistake, this is not a direct democracy and it was never intended to be one.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...