Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Broken Record

Political analysts are doing the autopsy of the Romney campaign and making prognosees for future elections.  "Stick to principles!"  "Reach out to illegal immigrants!"  "Kick out the people obscessed with lady-parts!"  Yeah yeah.  Happens every cycle.  And the never get the answer right.

I voted for Bush Bush Dole Bush Bush Palin Nobody, in my long life.  I vote for those early ones because they were the closest thing to what I was.  Libertarian conservatives interested in a robust War Department.  Certainly compared to the alternative.

And while I like Ryan, Romney was not my first choice, and I am not doing that again.  Vote for the VP of the ticket.  So I didn't vote.  Not for president.  I voted downticket.  NONE of them won, either.  (And I don't vote 3rd party.  3rd party is usually insane and if you want a real system with more that 2 parties you have to change the Constitution first.  So either get with the program or take over one of the exisiting parties or completely displace one.)

But I wonder if I am alone?  3 million FEWER GOP types voted for Romney than voted for McCain.  I am one of those 3 million.  Maybe THAT is what the analysts should look at the hardest.


Bubblehead Les. said...

Well, like I said before, a Vote for Romney in Maryland would be in the shredder faster than crap through a Goose.

Having said that, about 1/3rd of the REGISTERED Voters in Ohio stayed home. About 2.6 MILIION to be correct. Yet some Precients in Cleveland had 99% turnout, and they all voted for Obama.

Now, since the Democratic Base came out and did their job, that 1/3rd who stayed home were most likely Republicans. My supposition is this: Romney got most of the same Votes he won in the Spring Primary, and that's it. The rest of the Republicans decided to say "If MY Candidate ain't on the Ballot, then I'm taking MY Vote and Staying Home, so there!"

So, for all those Republicans who stayed home, Congratulations on Re-Electing Obama!

I hope you enjoy every single stinking minute of what he has planned for the Republic.

Windy Wilson said...

Well, what small consolation it is, Obama will be in charge for the next 4 years, so presumably his fingerprints will be on the stuff that turns to shit.

Dave said...

I'd have to disagree that you'd have to change the Constitution to get more than two parties (although getting rid of the 17th Amendment wouldn't hurt.)

What you really have to do is change the laws at the state level. If Reps (and state legislators) were selected on a proportional representation basis, you'd get more parties, especially in big states like CA, TX, NY, etc. It's the single member district, more than anything else, that reinforces the 2 party system. (Getting Congress to increase the number of House members would help, too. It's absurd that some states have more Senators than Reps.)
Another thing you could do, again at the state level, is to get rid of the automatic ballot access laws (ie, if your party's candidate got x% of the vote last go round, your party's candidate automatically gets a slot.) This is a massive advantage for the 2 major parties, as they don't have to gather petition signatures to get their candidates on the ballot.
At the Presidential level, again, its the states that have created the 'winner take all' system of allocating Electoral College votes. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they have to do it that way (see Nebraska and Maine for examples of alternate allocation systems.)

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

It's 51% of the electoral votes to win that gives us the 2 party system.

Geodkyt said...

Dave- the disparity between teh numbers of senators and House representatives isn't a BUG, it's a FEATURE. The federal system was DELIBERATELY established that way, for a reason.

Otherwise, we might as well go to a unicameral system. And a Westminster style parlimentary system as well. Oh wait, then we'd be Great Britain without the Crown -- which is EXACTLY what teh Founding Fathers were trying to avoid in teh first place, having lived under that style of government their entire lives. . .