Redstate

a while back on ESPN in reference to the BCS Bowl games. I just found the quote:

"With the electoral college, great and noble people came up with a bad idea. The BCS was created by greedy, bad people who came up with an evil idea."

To answer your question, I'm sure they have thought long and hard about getting rid of the electoral college.

What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi

Of course that's the only time we have "voter irregularities" too. :o)

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

It's a anachronism that dates back to a time when citizens didn't even vote for the President.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

But the electors pretty much echo the public will. That wasn't always the case.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

competing interests. The small states versus the big states is still a critical balance that needs to be kept. Abolishing the electoral college will also abolish that balance. At which point we will lose what is left of our liberty. I'd spell it out for you, but it would take longer than the ten minutes I can spare while eating lunch.

This isn't the 18th century. People are mobile and state's are no longer the defining bond between Americans.

Rural, suburban and urban are much greater differentiators these days. I fail to see how electoral college addresses that.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The Electoral College works even better to balance the needs of rural vs. suburban areas of the country than it did to balance the needs of states.

Why? Mass media and urban density.

Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would scramble for votes in bulk, where they could gather then most efficiently - the urban centers like NYC, Chicago, LA. One commercial broadcast reaches more people in the NYC media market than in, say, the Des Moines media market. And in most circumstances, I'd bet the per-eyeball cost is lower, too.

It's somewhat easier to engage in retail politics in urban centers, too. If you want to meet as many people on a door-knocking mission as possible, would you rather hit an apartment building or a cluster of one-acre homesteads?

Without the electoral college, our presidency would be decided by the voters in New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Notice anything about those states? They're reliably liberal, even when they've got nominal Republicans in office. If we do away with the Electoral College, our presidents for the foreseeable future will be reliably liberal, as well - at least as liberal as the urban cores that elect them.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Republican influence? That's fine.

Personally I think it would be nice if Republican felt any desire to serious politick in New York or CA and Democrats felt any reason to politick in Texas.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If for no other reason, it means that the margin of fraud only matters in a few states. In totally DEM controlled states, they can cheat all they want but it doesn't matter. For example, they can cheat all they want in NJ to no avail.

Really. In Maryland they even have a law in place that when a certain number of states sign on there delegation will by law be required to follow the National vote no mater how Marylanders vote.

I'd also like to get rid of the Electoral College. Why should a citizen of Wyoming have about 4 times the presidential voting power as I do in Texas?

against the tyranny of the mobocracy. Perhaps you should go back and study the French Revolutions, and maybe read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. They clearly spell out the need for this system. And just because we haven't had a split convention in about 175 years, doesn't mean we won't ever have one again. And then the need for the convention will be apparent once more.

How does the EC work as a safeguard against the tyranny of the "mobocracy?" And by "mobocracy," don't you really mean the voters? Even if we wanted an elitist, non-democratic system (admittedly, one of the reasons the Founders liked it), the system does not work that way anymore and hasn't for an extremely long time since delegates are so tied to the candidates who win the state elections.

The only practical effects of the EC currently are (1) greater relative voting power to lower population states and (2) ensuring that candidates ignore the vast majority of voters who live in non-competitive states while pandering to those in battleground states.

That's simple, they (the EU) ignore votes they don't like.

-J

It's a combination of both.

There's migration to the "red" areas because of more plentiful jobs and lower living costs (housing being the prime one).

The birth rates add to that - quick search (all I have time for!!) finds them (2004) here.

Utah is first, Vermont and Maine are tied for last - the difference between UT and VT/ME is more than 2:1.

After the 2004 election, either James Taranto or Mark Steyn did a plot of Bush vs. Kerry margin in each state vs. the state's birth rate; a linear regression analysis (fitting a line to the data) turned back a correlation coefficient larger than 0.8 if I remember correctly - very high correlation. It was the best predictor of the voting results - much better than income, education, etc.

Ol' John Edwards may be right about there being "two Americas," but it's not what he thinks. One is growing both by in-migration ("Refugees are people who vote with their feet." -- Lenin) and organically. The other is emptying and the remnant population is self-liquidating.

While it's true that Republicans are having more children on average than Democrats, don't underestimate the effectiveness of the indoctrination going on in our schools.

My college-age son showed me a Facebook poll with 75% of the participants in support of same-sex marriage.

Wait until they have children.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

The number of epiphanies expressed by former lefties on this site gives me hope.

But if they had polled my group when we were children I have to think about 99% of us would have opposed same-sex marriage. I don't know, maybe my childhood was sheltered.

It amazes me how people can pull up roots and flee economic stagnation, then continue advocate the very policies which caused the flight in the first place.

And they say southerners are dumb....

"A vacation is when you go to see some place different, then complain when things aren't like you're used to."

Your average citizen does not follow politics closely, and has a very limited knowledge of economics. They do not realize the reason that they are being forced to leave are because of liberal policies. I find it astounding that no conservative candidates point this out to people.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

New Hampshire is the prototypical example. Folks move from MA, RI and CT up to NH because they claim "they want the small-town lifestyle" - and then when they get there they demand new schools, sidewalks, streetlights, trash collection - not to mention the variety of social services they came to be used to in their home states.

And you know what? There's a political party already in place there who would be more than happy to oblige their wishes. And they're growing. Fancy that!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you suggesting that if Huckabee is the Republican nominee he might lose Utah to the Dem? Or, are you suggesting that if Huckabee is the nominee, Utah will not gain an extra Representative in redistricting? Both seem ludicrous.

No one claimed people are moving b/c of their politics. The point is that more conservative states have lower unemployment rates, better job opportunities, and cheaper cost of living (esp. housing).

So apolitical people come to those places. Of course, as has been mentioned upthread, some people move from CA to NV or NJ to NC and keep voting D (probably due to social issues) and thus end up driving up unemployment and cost of living inadvertently.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Come on, Adam. I'm not the one trying to make a political statement about failing political ideologies.

People are leaving NJ because it is VERY EXPENSIVE to live here. Not because of the government, although property taxes are pretty insane. But buying a house within an hour of NY is simply out of the question for many people. So they move somewhere that they can buy a house.

New Jersey's unemployment rate is well below the national average.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

And my point was that no one claimed this was a conservative exodus. Rather, the claim is that NH is very expensive in part b/c of the level of government intrusion. Housing restrictions, regulations, and all kinds of local laws make housing prices rise. Of course, the high demand for certain areas does as well. But even as Southern cities grow into mega-cities, their prices are lower. Governments haven't yet put all the restrictions and regulations on those cities that they have in the NYC area (i.e. no public transportation really exists).

Thus, when people leave NJ b/c it is very expensive, move to Cary, NC and then demand more services, public transportation, environmental regulations, and fewer Wal-Marts, etc... they drive up the price of their new locale. That's the ironic aspect that is being mentioned elsewhere. It doesn't seem to click that electing liberals is part of the cause of higher home prices (as well as other prices).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

So liberalism is now defined as wanting mass transit systems and complex highway systems?

You think that housing restrictions are a liberal concept? Does Atlanta not have zoning laws? How bout Raleigh-Durham?

Honestly I certainly don't view any of those programs are liberal. They are necessary programs for large cities.

You don't think that the problem is simply that there are too many people here? Or is overpopulation a liberal problem as well?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

1) Why are people leaving?
2) What made things so bad that they have decided to leave?
3) Will the things that drew them to an area remain the same after the population shifts?

Answers:
1) The economic results of liberal policies.
2) Liberal policies.
3) No.

Shampoo, wash, repeat. Shampoo, wash, repeat.

is definitely correlated with political affiliation. Sure everyone has fire codes, but IIRC NYC requires elevators in every two story building as a pro-handicapped regulation. That's expensive. So some run down places don't get renovated b/c it would be too expensive to outfit the old place to bring it up to code.

And yes, the codes and regulations in the suburbs outside Atlanta or Houston or Orlando (where the real growth is) are different from NYC or the surrounding counties.

And the push for monorails or light rails or subways in places like Portland, SF, and NYC differs drastically compared to Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, and Nashville.

Ditto the reluctance to build new highways in liberal areas for environmental and anti-growth reasons. Anti-growth ideology is quite popular is a lot of liberal circles. And most of the anti-growth policies make home prices rise (and hence slow growth). I know in MD, some "rural" counties have passed laws about lot size (one house per 5 acres) to keep the "rural" feel. Of course rich lawyers buy the homes and have a functional estate and the home price goes through the roof b/c the land isn't divided into 20-50 homes.

This leads to a bunch of rich liberals in MD who have a good life but have driven out others who can't afford to live there b/c of the regulations. Those people move to states that are less anti-growth (and often more conservative).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You are simply assigning odious policies to liberalism.

The reluctance to build new highways has nothing to do with liberalism and everything thing to do with controlling property values in crowded locations.

You are not arguing liberalism versus conservatism. You are arguing urban lifestyle versus suburban lifestyles.

I fail to see how you can claim that the New York City region is an example of failed liberal policies. Because one of the largest cities in the world is experiencing a slight decrease in migration and New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the union, is as well?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I'm trying to explain the different policies in liberal suburbs and conservative ones. And how they are part of the reason that prices are higher (and taxes are higher) in liberal ones. This leads to people moving to cheaper ones, not for ideological reasons but for practical ones. Then because they think they can have their cake and eat it too, they demand the same policies they had back up North. This eventually creates the same problems they had in the North.

I don't think it's odious to have anti-growth policies. But it does make prices higher and keeps working class people out of an area (see Montgomery County, MD). Those people move to cheaper suburban areas like Atlanta, Houston, Orlando and Dallas.

It's not good vs. evil, it's an analysis. NYC has the most heavily regulated market in the country because every good intentioned change is accepted. The number of boards and agencies is staggering. It's expensive to do anything there because of it. And as people and businesses became more mobile (post-internet especially) that expense wasn't worth it. So we get Wal-Mart in Bentonville, AR and Microsoft in Redmond, WA rather than NYC, NY. And people follow the jobs.

This is all without even going into the comparative unionization rates across these states.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Erick did indeed use the term 'tyranny' when describing these alleged liberal policies. I would imagine tyrannical laws are generally considered odious, no?

And you also ignore the fact that the NYC metro area is just part of a general migratory shift to warmer climates and cheaper prices. Upstate New York is not known for its liberalism but most of those cities have been gutted by an exodus to other regions.

NYC is not the entire metro region. NJ and Long Island suburbs aren't particularly more restrictive than any other suburban areas.

Some areas will ALWAYS be cheaper than others. But as demand for housing increases they will become less so. North Carolina is experiencing that today. Try and buy a home in RTP. You won't confuse that for bargain shopping.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Well just for the record I own a home in the Raleigh-Durham area :) It's not OK prices, but it sure beats DC and NYC.

I agree that climate is a factor. But throughout, my point has been that the regulatory environment is part of why people move to other places. And you mention "cheaper prices" as if they are some external factor. I'm not going to recount the posts above, but I tried to chronicle how NYC-style government (state and local) leads to higher prices in homes and other goods.

My underlying point was that government does affect prices, in places like NYC it makes them higher, people move to cheaper locales, those people don't realize that their former political views were part of why prices were high, they keep those political views, they elect people who put policies in place that raise prices again. And RTP may be in the first stages of doing just that (I know Chapel Hill is for sure).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You are looking at the chicken while I'm looking at the egg, or vice versa.

IMO, those policies are a by-product of urban living. They are unavoidable. Because without them you have a lot of bad things.

Government regulation isn't what makes housing in Manhattan cost $1000 sq/ft. Intense demand for the property does. 25 years ago there was just as much regulation, if not more, but demand was much lower thus prices were much lower.

I won't deny that regulations do raise prices but that is, at most, a supplemental cost.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Excessive regulation affects supply and do not allow the market to function as efficiently as it should. Thus the $1000 sq ft prices in Manhattan.

Homes in RTP (basically SW Durham), and even Cary are not terribly expensive compared to most other areas. Appreciation has been steady, but not outrageous. Cary is well on its way to having home prices escalate - however, the yankees have not quite taken over yet.

Homes in very liberal Chapel Hill, on the other hand, are basically out of everyone's price range. The town council is basically full of no-growth out-of-towners, and they have succeeded in halting growth and driving out everyone but the very rich.

There is no diversity in Chapel Hill at all, and the economy hinges on UNC Chapel Hill and the affiliated hospital, neither of which shows any sign of faltering. Chapel Hill has what Cary doesn't yet - rich retirees, rich doctors, rich lawyers and a cash cow.

I agree with Erick's use of the word "tyranny", and the term "odious" when discussing this subject, and have lived long enough to see my beloved South tilt this way in certain areas.

All of this FWIW...

that home residents should be able to set up restrictions on new construction and growth?

As I said I see nothing liberal about protectionist policies that bar others from moving into your town.

Wealth liberals are no different than wealthy conservatives. It is their economic class that defines them.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But they shouldn't whine when homes are unaffordable and there is no one around to change soiled adult diapers, mow the lawn or serve the pate'. But that is not the point.

This is not about some grassroots movement of homeowners. It is about people who flee one place because of the effect of a certain set of policies, and immediately begin to institute those very same policies in the place that is their new refuge.

but since the flaws inherent in liberalism as it is understood in the US, liberalism inevitably leads to these problems. Hayek nailed it a long time ago, and liberals still don't have an answer to his thoughtful analysis.

For heavily populated areas?

Please tell me how you avoid mass transit systems and large police forces and large school systems that cater to an extremely diverse student body?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

It's a spectrum. If you think NYC needs every agency and board and regulator it has, then you should be fine with the expensive nature of the city. But other cities survive (and right now thrive) on a different system. They still have roads, schools, and a fire department, but they don't need a LGBTQ Task Force or other special interest boards and regulators.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm certainly not suggesting that New York is the standard all cities should follow.

But it's not like NYC can do with most of their very expensive infrastructure. NYC has the 17th largest GDP, as compared to other nations. It is a massive economic center that requires very large bureaucracies to support it. When you have large bureaucracies you will have waste and red tape.

Comparing NYC to Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte is a bit silly. They are in different leagues economically speaking.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"You think that housing restrictions are a liberal concept? Does Atlanta not have zoning laws? How bout Raleigh-Durham?"

Houston does not have zoning laws. Moreover, there were no zoning laws in the US prior to 1916 when NYC decided to import them from Germany. A whole lot of large cities have grown, and prospered without zoning ordinances.

P.S. Here is a link to a good blog zoning blog. http://ti.org/antiplanner/

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I used to live there, now I live in the land where it never stops raining (though last night we had snow - GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!). And just to help the census in 2010, we'll probably be back in the South by then, heh.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

It's worse than a colony of fire ants.

I lived there up until the middle of 2004, so I haven't been gone too long. And yes, for some reason there are a lot of people from NJ living there - though all the ones I knew were conservative. And we do get back to the area often (Hillsborough to be exact) because that's where my wife's family is.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

A nice place, full of NC history. A bit of a hike from the airport, which I am sure suits them fine. Seems to have avoided the explosive growth of similar areas, and the subdivisions that are cropping up are very large lots and well-designed homes.

How do they like the new WalMart and Home Depot? Pretty controversial for a time...

shorter trek to the airport than the 90 minute drive to PDX we have to do now :) And the Durham Freeway is great (oh how I miss going to Bulls games too).

My mother-in-law hates the Wal*Mart (and it's only 2 miles from her house), but she hates all Wal*Marts - she's to the left of Kucinich. She didn't like me pointing out all the new shops (and jobs that come with them) that popped up around the Wal*Mart. If you haven't tried the Maple View Farm ice cream, you're missing out! Though I like going and sitting in the rocking chairs out in the country side at their other store. They do love having the HD there for fixing up the house. Hillsborough has some great little shops and restaurants downtown. Great place to live.

I didn't want to leave the area, but I love my (now) wife more. So it was off to Atlanta and then out here to Oregon for her job. We're looking at moving back hopefully by the end of this year to next year. We don't know where just yet. We could end up back in Atlanta, though I don't think so. She isn't too big on Raleigh, but Greensboro or Winston-Salem would be good. Maybe Charlotte. And we've also talked about Chattanooga, Knoxville and Spartanburg/Greenville.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Flyer, what do you know about the economic effects of NYC rent control laws?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Rent control laws have both a positive and negative effect. It really depends on the specific law in question.

Rent control laws that forbid a landlord from raising rents are silly and a bit unfair.

However rent control laws that simply restrict rate increases to some arbitrary number are generally pretty good. Then again I don't believe that a landlord should be allowed to kick out their tenants simply because there has been a recent uptick in the rental market.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Are you aware that all forms of rent control have the same two effects (they all decrease the quality and quantity of rental properties)? Ultimately, the reduction in quantity, and quality of the supply in rent controlled dwellings, drives up the prices of non-rent controlled alternatives. In essence rent control is at least partially responsible for the high cost of living in NYC.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-rent_controls.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"Then again I don't believe that a landlord should be allowed to kick out their tenants simply because there has been a recent uptick in the rental market."

The presence of a lease contract prevents things like that.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

But leases expire.

I realize that rent control can have an upward pressure on price by reducing supply. However efficient pricing isn't the only objective with the housing market.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

How about the reduction in supply of housing, or the reduction in the quality of the housing supply?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Is the supply reducing? The same number of people need housing. If anything new housing, that is not impacted by the same regulations, is more likely to be built.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"Is the supply reducing? The same number of people need housing."

Need has no relationship to supply. Price controls adversely impact the profitability of landlording. In consequence, landlords reinvest less capital into the maintenance of rent controlled properties, which shrinks the lifespan of existing rent controlled properties, and thus expedites the condemnation of rent controlled properties (this decreases the supply of rent controlled housing). Worse, price controls also discourage the construction of new rent controlled housing, because the investment in rent controlled housing is less profitable than the alternative uses for capital. In consequence, fewer and fewer new rent control properties are constructed (this also decreases supply of rent controlled housing).

"If anything new housing, that is not impacted by the same regulations, is more likely to be built."

That rally does not doing anything for low income earners (the ones the leftist rent controlers claim to want to help). High end properties that do not fall under rent controls will get built, but properties that service lower income renters will not if there is even a remote chance that rent controls will be applied to the new properties.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

how does price control affect the rent control? They are the same thing?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Typo: substitute the words rent control for price control.

P.S. Sorry about the typos, and grammar today. I only got about 2 hours of sleep last night.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Typo: substitute really for rally

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

What they have fled is exactly what they are re-creating, however.

A favorite destination seems to be Cary, NC. The local joke is the name is an acronym for "Containment Area for Relocated Yankees". Coincidentally, they also found e-coli in their drinking water supply last year.

We agree but why is this part of this discussion? Someone should remove it.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton