Help Select Questions for Bush and Kerry 1501
This is a strange post in that it has 50 comments attached to it already. These are 50 questions for Bush and Kerry selected by non-Slashdot moderators, as explained in our original call for help with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate. At this point, where you come in is not only with extra-insightful moderation of these 50 questions, but with your "many eyes" trying to spot questions these two candidates have answered elsewhere so that the final questions presented to them are not repeats. The first 40 questions are from potential voters aged 18 - 35. The last 10 are from future voters 13 - 17. And that's enough explanation. From here we might as well jump right into the questions...
18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #2 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM (Score:1, Interesting)
18-35 #4 AIDS: (Score:3, Interesting)
18-35 #5 CIVIL LIBERTIES/JUSTICE (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:3, Interesting)
18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #8 DRUG POLICY (Score:3, Interesting)
18-35 #9 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #10 DRAFT (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #11 DRAFT (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #12 ENVIRONMENT (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #15 EDUCATION (SEX ED) (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #16 EDUCATION (SEX ED) (Score:3, Interesting)
18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #18 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #19 FAMILY VALUES (Score:1, Interesting)
18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #21 GLBT (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #23 IMMIGRATION (Score:1, Interesting)
18-35 #25 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:3, Interesting)
18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #28 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #29 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #31 LEGAL REFORM (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #33 MEDICAL (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #34 PERSONAL (Score:4, Interesting)
18-35 #35 PERSONAL (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #36 PERSONAL (Score:5, Interesting)
18-35 #40 OTHER (Score:5, Interesting)
13 - 17 #1 TEEN PREGNANCY/SEX EDUCATION (Score:4, Interesting)
13 - 17 #2 SPECIAL EDUCATION (Score:4, Interesting)
13 - 17 #5 PERSONAL (Score:5, Interesting)
13 - 17 #6 PERSONAL (Score:3, Interesting)
13 - 17 #8 ENVIRONMENT (Score:5, Interesting)
13 - 17 #9 IMMIGRATION/JOBS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:5, Interesting)
Iraqi Deaths (Score:2, Interesting)
Questions for both candidates (Score:3, Interesting)
Which recommendations of the 9/11 Commission do you oppose and feel are inappropriate for implimentation.
What specific steps will you take (are you taking) to find Usama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Exactly what resources ought our military and intelligence services be given to finish the job of capturing these known perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack on the United States?
Exactly how will Social Security benefits be paid for by your policies after 2020?
The Big, Unanswerable Question (Score:1, Interesting)
Instead of choosing our President from amongst the best and the brightest, why are we continually forced to choose the lesser of two evils?
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #4 AIDS: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION (Score:1, Interesting)
Mod up? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #17 FOREIGN POLICY (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #20 GLOBAL ECONOMY (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #27 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:5, Interesting)
The Shia comprise of 2/3 of the population and the cleric Al Sistani is the most revered person in all of Iraq right now. What will the kurds and the sunnis do if the parliment if 2/3 shia?
Re:18-35 #7 DRUG POLICY (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #35 PERSONAL (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, Wyatt, all the examples you cite show that the elected candidate as the one who got the most votes, so I'm not seeing your point. Sure, none of these got more than 50% of the popular vote, but they all got more than than the other candidates.
Why didn't you include the Y2K election, in which G.W. Bush got less than 50%, as well as losing the popular vote? [wikipedia.org]
Re:18-35 #37 PERSONAL (Score:3, Interesting)
Assessment of questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Electoral Reform - Oh brother. The electoral system is not broken. You should understand that the fact that a minority-vote-getter can become president actually proves that "Majority rules, minority rights" does exist in this country. Besides, electoral voting actually strengthens the individual vote (Miami-Dade county would not even exist if it wasn't for the 2000 vote).
2) Online Voting - my opinion, but I think there's more pressing issues than just the opportunity to vote online (besides, you don't get the obligatory "I voted" sticker).
3) Judiciary Appointment - this process was made to prevent stupid Joes from appointing judges. You can call it corruption, but Bush has had a *ton* of court appointments denied by Congress
4) AIDS - not unique. This question always appears in the debates, and they always have canned answers. "Blah blah, money for research, blah blah, I don't have AIDS, so I don't care, blah blah." Move on.
5) Supreme Court Justices - PICK THIS. Every president wants some "echo" of their power to last throughout the ages, and this dates all the way back to John Adams and the appointment of Federalist John Marshall. Ask this question, and you get a good mirror image of the policies you can expect from candidates themselves.
6) Marijuana vs. Alcohol - Hippie question. Alcohol is part of our culture, like it or abstain from it. No dance with Mary Jane. Move on.
7) Drug Fight - Don't ask -- you'll get another canned answer from the politicans. "DARE this, Community involvement that, but you gotta love the alcohol commercials!"
8) Medical Marijuana - Another canned response "Needs more research - need to make sure there's a way that it doesn't get abused." Not worth the breath, hippie. Go pack your bags and move to Holland.
9) Drug Provision for Financial Aid - Definately the way to Go. My gosh, this is a good question, and one I never thought about before. Poster definately has a point that those who have paid their time still deserve an education.
10 and 11) Draft - They'll all deny it, and everyone knows that. They may plan it, but they'll never admit to it. So don't bother to ask.
12) Focused goal on Alt. Fuels - Worth Asking, especially with the spin on the "10 year mission to the Moon" emphasis. It just goes to prove that things can get done if you really put your mind to it.
13) Child Abuse - Sad to say it, but skip it. What you need to stop this is GrassRoots - neighbor to neighbor, family to family, friend to friend, and teacher to student is the only way to fix abuse. Jail does not deter hate.
14) Animal Rights - Eat more meat. Death to PETA. Next.
15) Sex Ed - Thought Provoking - it's a good domestic question, because teenage pregnancy has always been a problem.
16) Home Schooling - Last I checked, Bush was supporting it with "No Child Left Behind." If he wasn't, he'll just plug it as another alternative to failing schools.
17) USA, the World Bully - Fine ask it, but the same question will be asked in the debates, and the answers will only be the same as what is said in the television commericals.
18) Isreal vs. Palestine - Don't ask, don't tell - it's been the policy for the last 50 years regarding the actions of Isreal. No US leader that I know will change that right now.
19) Integrate Family Values - Of course, the president has always been responsible for raising the children of the US-of-A. Need family values? Find a family that you can value.
20) Metric Conversion in the USA - thanks. I needed a laugh. Metric in the USA? That's hilarious.
21) Civil Marriage for Gay/Lesbian
Blaim Feminism's double standard (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Good feminists have abortions.
2) This desire NOT to work is the main reason women are rumoured to earn 0.70 on the dollar.
3) We have ~8 billion (with a B) people in the world, I am not encouraging you to have anymore.
4) As a small buisness owner, pass this and I'll think long and hard before hiring a women of child bearing age. Of course, I'll officially turn you down for some other reason. (give me credit for knowing how to play the game.)
I already have a women that takes 1 maternity leave per year for the last 3 years (3 kids). The energy expended in finding her a temp. replacement and reorganizing her duties has me trying to find ways to permently replace her with minimum legal risk.
5) Maybe the US is the "undisputed world leader" (a claim I beat I could dispute) beacuse it doesn't spend money on issues like this.
6) I thought women wanted equality. How is giving the mother time off equal treatment to the men who don't get time off? Oh, I forgot. It is the National Organization of WOMEN, not the National Organization for EQUALITY. Men are just sperm donors with wallets to them. If you rapist, murdering men would just give us your DNA and money and we'll live 10-15 years longer than you.
BTW, if you want equal treatment, men should be able to disown (i.e no child support) a kid during the man amount of time a women has the legal right to unilaterally decide on an abortion.
Of course, I could be wrong. Or maybe I am right, just not politically correct.
Re:13 - 17 #7 TOLERANCE/DISCRIMINATION (Score:3, Interesting)
Gateway Drugs? Tobacco and Alcohol. (Score:3, Interesting)
For one of my friends, though, marijuana was a gateway drug. After the first time he got stoned, he said "Wow! They really LIED to me about pot! I wonder what ELSE they lied to me about?" and headed off to try all the other things they'd told him were Bad, many of which he also liked, though a few of them he decided really _were_ bad.
And while we're at it, what message would it send to our kids? We might send the message that when _adults_ are wrong about things, they admit it and change their minds, or we might send the message that when adults are wrong, we tell kids that they have to do what we say Because We Said It and we'll make up whatever bogus lies will scare them into believing us, just like we do about so many other things.
Re:18-35 #3 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM (Score:1, Interesting)
The year before I owed $125.
My filing status didn't change.. and I used the same tax software (and haven't gotten audited.. hehe)
So what's with this tax cut for the wealthiest 1% bullshit people keep spewing?
Re:Posion pill legislation... (Score:4, Interesting)
1.) US troops overseas in places like Germany and Japan reaffirms the commitments inherent in NATO. While the NATO alliance was once about mutual defense, it's now a league of ideologically aligned states. As such, it provides one of the single most stabilizing influences in the world. Pulling back from these commitments signals a US regression towards isolationism which, in turn, signals a weakening of the NATO alliance.
2.) US troops manning bases overseas provide forward deployment points for conflicts world wide. The reason we use air force bases in Germany for casualties in Iraq (for example) is that the facilities are just as good as those available in the United States but don't involve hauling injured persons across the Atlantic. These bases provide a strategically valuable bridge between the home front and the forward operating theater.
Fundamentally, this pull back is a very very very bad idea. It's being done for political reasons to assure people that we won't need to worry about reinforcements for those being cut down in Iraq. Mostly, it's being done to convince people like my extended family that their sons and daughters who are in the guard won't have to go overseas to fight in a war that most of them are indifferent to.
The draft thing is being kicked around as a metaphor for a bigger problem. Most people who are in the US reserves (guard, etc) are in them with the same preconceptions that Bush and his fellow guardsmen had in the 1970s, namely that you can serve in the guard and not see combat. Admittedly, this is a really stupid conclusion to make. Nonetheless, people made it and now they're afraid they'll get sucked into Iraq because of Bush's war. Kerry bats around the draft because implicit in that idea is that the guardsmen are going to Iraq, it also conjures up the specter of Vietnam. Bush pooh-poohs the idea of a draft to downplay the possibility of guardsmen going to Iraq and to quash the specter of Vietnam.
Re:13 - 17 #3 ISSUES OF MORALITY (Score:3, Interesting)
In reality, it's because the American public responds more to mud-slinging than it does to honest political discourse.
Re:18-35 #6 DRUG POLICY (Score:3, Interesting)
Arguably it did. These days the Congress, with Supreme Court backing, tends to view the Constitution as a proscriptive document and assume that they're allowed to pass laws on any subject just so long as they're not specifically forbidden to do so.
However, a plain-English reading of Article I Sections 8 and 9 [cornell.edu] suggests otherwise. Section 8 enumerates Congress' powers; Section 9 places specific limits on those powers. Nowhere in either of these sections do we find Congress authorized to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, or any other intoxicating substance. They might prohibit their import or transportation across State lines, but that's it. The 18th Amendment was therefore necessary if alcohol was to be prohibited everywhere.
Perhaps Congress could have simply passed a law against it. But you could probably bet that any judge that law came before would use anything, even an "antiquated" view of Constitutional law, to strike it down if it would keep him from his Cognac nightcap.
Although the 18th Amendment was foolish, it wasn't an abuse. The Constitution was amended in that case fair and square. I don't know enough about the issue to evaulate the objections to the legality of the 16th Amdendment, but if they're true then it's a serious abuse indeed. (It's also possible the 17th Amendment is invalid by the "equal suffrage" clause of Article V.)
It also wasn't Constitutional amendment through drastic re-interpretation, as some activist jugdes are wont to perform. That, to the extent it actually happens, is also a serious abuse.
A question from outside the US (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted that would be directed at Bush, but one could ask Kerry something along the same lines, "What are you going to do to prove you don't despise the people who vote you into power?"
Questions for Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
Or George Bush Senior's statement in 1998 that invading Iraq would have "incalculable human and political costs" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.as
Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/ch
I want to know how the President (or anyone else, really) can reconcile the 2003 invasion of Iraq with these pronouncements. Obviously the situation has changed over the years, but it clearly has not changed enough to prevent the situation that Cheney described.
Re:18-35 #26 IRAQ/FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Score:2, Interesting)
A better question would be, "Under what circumstances, if any, would you deem it necessary to declare war on a rising nuclear power such as Iran or North Korea?"
Crack Addiction vs. Tobacco and Alcohol Addiction (Score:3, Interesting)
According to Bush#1's Office of National Drug Control Policy strategy report, if cocaine and heroin were legal, you could be a cokehead for less than the price of a pack a day of cigarettes or a pint of cheap booze, and a junkie for under $1/day. So all this crime and violence associated with Drug Prohibition are because there's some compelling moral difference between being a junkie and being a drunkard, so important that we should criminalize users and let sellers attack each other on the streets with illegal assault weapons and let terrorists fund their organizations with opium-growing profits.
But it's going to take a lot of social change before America relaxes enough to legalize cocaine and heroin - think about Marijuana legalization first. Sure, the first month it's legal a lot of us are going to go on a few weekend benders and get it out of our systems (:-), just like the first few weekends after The Noble Experiment of alcohol Prohibition was repealed. And too many stoned drivers will get in car accidents for a while, but mostly people will stay home and order pizza. And the first six months or a year's worth of demand will mostly be satisfied by former criminals who were professionally growing it, until the tobacco farmers take over and people start growing their own in their back yards. (Marijuana's already the largest agricultural cash crop in the tobacco-growing states, as well as in the West Coast lumber-growing regions, but that's mainly because the street price is as expensive per ounce as gold rather than as cheap per pound as tomatoes.)
Re:18-35 #23 IMMIGRATION (Score:2, Interesting)
Skull and Bones (Score:2, Interesting)
You BOTH from a secret sociaty (skull and bones) founded on drug money, taking in only 15 candidates every year which puts its tie to the brotherhood above 'anything else'.
Is this blinding bind not a threat to national security?
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:5, Interesting)
I already went over how inclusion in the Consitution doesn't prove it was considered ideal. They were practicing pragmatism. The desire was for a fair system- but creating fairness on a bed of injustice means that some people will lose power and refuse the change. To mollify those people, concessions were made.
No serious historian thinks the means of apportioning Senators was anything but a sop to Rhode Island and its ilk.
This isn't a case where their motivation was a mystery; it was spelled out.
Maybe it was written someplace, but not in the Federalist Papers. You are conflating directness and proportionality. That paper is primarily about the mechanical methods of conducting a vote, which was of import back then, as a single vote spanning the distance from Massachusetts to Georgia was an unprecedented concept.
Fewer than 6 words of the Federalist Papers have any bearing to the topic under discussion, and they are parenthetical. (They are in the 8th paragraph, by the way).
The electoral college is about "unequal political privilege"? That's not something you can just state unsupported and expect to be taken seriously
Do you need support for claims like "69 is less than 87"? Because that's the degree of self-evidence we're dealing with here. Or would you care to deny that in the current system, a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah?
Re:Assessment of questions... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, the point of this is to ask questions that the candidates haven't been asked before, or aren't likely to be asked at some future point. A lot of the questions are pretty standard, or close to standard, but this one is so far off the track of what's traditionally asked that you expect both candidates to be baffled by it. To me that means it is an ideal question, because no one else is actually asking it of them, and I don't think it's at all likely anyone else (who actually gets to ask them questions) will either. This question should be asked.
Hell, even Michael Badnarik who is far more likely to have a few clues on such issues provided a sheer load of waffle in answer to this question when asked by Slashdot. I expect David Cobb to do much the same (as I presume it will be included with his questions). Who cares if we don't get a coherent answer, the fact that we don't should be a very good sign that we ought to keep asking this question, ever more pointedly, until we do get some real answers.
Admittedly the question would be better if they dropped the first sentence and just asked specifically about views on extending copyright, and reforming patent law. That would make for a pretty specific question where any waffling would be obvious.
Jedidiah.
Re:18-35 #21 GLBT (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:18-35 #30 LEGAL REFORM (Score:3, Interesting)
"do you think there is a relationship between the amount an organisation/corporation donates to a political candidate/party and the benefit that organisation/corporation in turn receives from politicians after the donation is made? Do you think this is how a democracy should work, with those making the largest donations getting the most attention from politicians? If not, what do you propose to do about it? "
How about that?
-- james
Popular Vote vs. Electoral (Random) (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anyone not see the utter brilliance in this idea?
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:4, Interesting)
The electoral system was not chosen because it ensured a balance between the populous states and the rural states. It was in fact originally created to benefit slaveowners. A slave, while not allowed to vote, counted as 3/5th a person, and thus that state got more electoral votes, which of course meant that the vote of a slaveowner carried more weight than the vote of the average person. Which is why there were so many Presidents from Southern states back in the day.
Second. It's not very difficult building a case for why a president should be chosen by a simple majority. In fact, it's surprisingly easy.
The president is the head of the Union. He's the representative of this country as a whole, not some groups more than others.
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.
Dear Sirs... (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, I'm British. I can't vote for you and have never even been to the US, so my question is this: why should I try to persuade my American friends to vote for you.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the majority of the voters in this country be the ones to make the decision as to who that person is.
This is a non-sequitur, but let's pretend it isn't for a moment.
The system for electing the President has been subverted by the practise of not placing the electors' names on the ballot, but those of the Presidential candidates themselves. Many inattentive voters in the 2000 election were sincerely surprised to discover that a President can be elected without receiving the highest number of popular votes. Candidates bring their campaigns directly to the people, and so do nothing to promote understanding of the Constitutionally mandated system. In effect, although the President isn't chosen by popular vote, the pre-election activity is carried out almost exactly as if he were.
Dirty campaign tactics, dirty money, special interest groups, interference from foreign governments -- we have, or have had by now, all this as a result. It was all foreseen by the authors of the Constitution, and the Electoral College was instituted in an attempt to avoid it in the hopes they would, with some rationality, choose based on the merity of a candidate and not because of political affiliation or any like consideration. Even the fact that the Electors meet in their respective states and not all in the same place is to forestall any one group from exerting an undue amount of political influence over them, or politicking among them with some states banding together against others.
Seeing as how all the above describes most of what is wrong with the system as it exists today, how would going to a direct popular vote fix that? Would it not make more sense to go back to something closer to the Constitutional design? Might we then avoid the kind of media circus that now attends every Presidential campaign and distracts the electorate from the real issues and qualifications of the candidates? How could we possibly fix any of this with a direct popular vote? (Much of it is already illegal, but it happens anyway, so passing more laws won't fix matters. We can't pass laws much more restrictive and still preserve our 1st Amendment rights of free speech.)
Re:Um, that's how the founders did it (Score:4, Interesting)
The electors are appointed by the political parties to vote for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot. In some states they're legally bound to vote for that candidate, but in others they're not. (Some Southern Democrats refused to vote for a Roman Catholic in the 1960 election and cast their ballots for a different Democrat. Imagine if enough of them had done this to throw the election to Nixon.) You don't know who they are because, in a very real sense, who they are makes no difference at all. Nothing is done as the system was envisioned to work.
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, we can infer that, because that's all your posts contain.
There was a very simple question asked: "Why is it better if the candidate with the most votes can lose the election?". You might TRY to answer that.
To the extent your lengthy digressions have addressed that topic at all, they've taken the following structure:
1. The Founding Fathers were really smart.
2. Way smarter than any of you jokers.
3. They set up the Constitution to work this way.
4. Therefore, it's best this way.
5. Now be quiet unless you can refute these 3 totally separate issues that I care about.
Holes in that "reasoning" are almost too apparent to bear mentioning, which is prehaps why we haven't said very much about them.
Most of the documents and rationalizations you provided have ignored the fact that states can choose the assignment of electors however they wish. Indeed, it seems quite plausible that the "Founders" did not consider the implications of that permission- because what arose is a form of Tryanny of the Majority, taking place in each of the 50 states upon every election.
Certainly, Texas COULD divide its electors proportionally, and send out 20 Bush supporters alongside 14 of Kerry's men. But as Republicans have the majority power, they won't do this. The rights of the minority Texan Democrats are trampled by the dominant GOP. (The reverse problem happens to the Massachusett GOP)
One might argue that this inequity is the fault of the states... but one would be wrong. The circumstance was the result of systems created by the USA Constitution, and only that Constitution has the power to alter them.
Re:18-35 #38 SOCIAL SECURITY (Score:3, Interesting)
So while the average lifespan increases, so does the retirement age, and so does the chances that you and your family will see much less of what you've actually invested.
To detractors of privatization, I can only say this - while the stock market has it's ups and downs, wise and diverse investing averages more than a 10% return. As people approach retirement age, more should be turned into bonds and less risky investment. Nobody following the plan, over the course of an adult life (say 25 to 70) ends up losing money. The only problem is that you can't trust people to take personal responibility for themselves - the so called "safety net" is for people, for whatever reason, who won't take care of their finances on their own.
Re:18-35 #22 HEALTH INSURANCE (Score:4, Interesting)
The USA is the only rich country without government funded healthcare. Wouldn't it make more sense to have toll roads and public hospitals?
Re:18-35 #1 ELECTION/VOTING REFORM: (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad idea per se -- I think that it makes some sense to group people geographically and then have them vote as one, and plenty of people have made arguments, including some interesting mathematical arguments, to demonstrate that the EC increases, rather than decreases, the value of the individual vote.
HOWEVER: What is not at all fair is the formula for distributing electoral college votes. In 2000, Montana had 1 vote for every 300K citizens, & California had only 1 vote for every 600K citizens. Every state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes, which gives all those gunslingers in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana WAY more than their share -- just as it gives them an outrageously disproportionate influence in the Senate (which I actually consider to be a worse problem). The source [wordiq.com] for those numbers says:
While largely ignored by Presidential candidates in elections, the smaller states are not as completely irrelevant as they would be otherwise.
This misses the point -- the small states are ignored by the candidates because they ARE NOT SWING STATES. Most are overwhelmingly Republican.
The most surprising thing about American politics right now is that North Dakota and South Dakota have 4 Democratic senators, even though both states vote firmly Republican in the Presidential elections. I don't know what to make of this, other than to suppose that the Rs must be repeatedly nominating wackos for Senator in those states. If the party manages to get its extremists under control, we'll have 4 more R senators, with the result that about a dozen Republican senators will have been elected to represent about 10 million citizens, vs the 88 senators that represent the other 270 million of us.
In any case, since the Constitution isn't going to change anytime soon -- the Republicans would have to be crazy to allow it -- the only real hope for the Democratic party is mass migration. They need to move about 1 million liberal Democrats out of TX, OK, CO, NY and CA into each of ND, SD, WY, MT, ID and UT.
You will note that this is NOT that many people, when all is said and done. If somebody with a lot of money made it their objective, it could be done. Most of the migrants should come from Texas , Oklahoma, and Colorado, where their current residency just serves to increase the number of electors appointed by the Republicans in those states.
18-35 #NEXTVAL balance for negativity (Score:3, Interesting)
For both candidates: you campaign has placed a lot of focus on your opponent's shortcomings, and of characteristics and behaviors not directly related to political competence.
In contrast to that, what qualities and acts from your opponent's political career do you admire and respect most?