GOP Chairwoman Lori Sotelo Is Appointing Delegates In Washington, Rather Than Allowing The Caucuses Elect Them, In A Bid To Steal The Nomination.

Ron Paul campaign cites Washington State GOP 'shenanigans'; may take legal action

That's what I call missing the point on The Amazing Atheist's question, in fact you missed the point so far that it came back around and bit you in the ass.

The discussion about red / blue districts generated a lot of disagreement, Brad calling "The Athiest" an asshole.

Be that as it may, in House districts gerrymandering is quite lethal:

The California redistricting carnage goes on, with the latest casualty being Republican Rep. David Dreier. The chairman of the House Rules committee, who was first elected in 1980, announced his resignation on the floor Wednesday, bowing to the reality of a newly redrawn district that is overwhelmingly Democratic.

(WSJ). It would be silly not to see the reality:

Here is a number that should open some eyes: 95 percent of all House members who sought reelection between 1982 through 2004 were reelected.

(Gerrymandering - Geological Deceit?). As we can see using the Rep. Dreier example, what changes the sequence is "redistricting", the nice word for gerrymandering.

The thing to remember is that red / blue does matter, but it matters a lot more in House districts.

Part of the problem with the red/blue dichotomy is that to whatever extent such calculations are based on the accepted vote tallies of recent elections, they're based on(in reality)unknown and quite possibly false outcomes. ALL reasoning, prognosticating, predicting based on false and or unknown outcomes as if they represent reality is a form of collective madness.

Interesting show, although I couldn't help but notice how wrong they got Ron Paul with regards to what it is that turns OFF voters about him ... IOW what exactly makes him "batshit crazy". They kept bringing up his foreign policy, which is NOT what makes him crazy. Not being intrusively involved in the affairs of other nations enjoys broad support amongst both pacifist liberals and there has ALWAYS been a strong isolationist streak among conservatives (Pat Buchanon and America First anyone?) that finds Paul the sanest.

What makes him batshit is his absolutist Austrian economic policies, absolute faith in the free market and removal of all regulation, and pushing totally bunk conspiratorial mythology about the federal reserve (like the myth they need to be audited when in fact they're audited every year) and desire to do away with it altogether which, along with his desire to return to the gold standard, anyone with economics background could tell you would be DISASTROUS for America's economy by removing such an important tool by which the country can control its own monetary policy.

And his absolutist free market with no government regulations? No EPA? No SEC to control Wall Street bad guys? Ron Paul's Utopian world would be a corporate plutocracy that would turn this country into a NIGHTMARE of wild west capitalism that would destroy the middle class and give the upper 1% the green light to horde even more wealth by means of collusion and duplicity as there would be no government laws or regulations to keep the free market fair.

Arias @5,

You said:

And his absolutist free market with no government regulations? No EPA? No SEC to control Wall Street bad guys? Ron Paul's Utopian world would be a corporate plutocracy that would turn this country into a NIGHTMARE of wild west capitalism that would destroy the middle class and give the upper 1% the green light to horde even more wealth by means of collusion and duplicity as there would be no government laws or regulations to keep the free market fair.

In other words he is a republican who wants to maintain the status quo in a mavericky Texan way.

The biggest obstacle for third parties is our first-past-the-post voting system that forces us to vote for the lesser of two evils. It really annoyed me how Brad acted as if all we had to do to get 3rd parties elected was to vote for them. He said something along the lines of “you don't get any prize for voting for the guy who is winning.” That misses the point. If we don't vote for the lesser of two evils, we risk electing the very worst candidate.

I agree with Cenk that money is a problem, but the main reason it is a problem is because of FPTP. FPTP ensures that the candidates with the most money will be perceived as the default candidates. And as I already mentioned, if we don't vote for one of those default candidates, we risk the worst candidate getting elected.

The most pragmatic solution is to have an open primary with approval voting and let the two most approved candidates face off in the general election. That way, we have the two best candidates competing against each other.

As for the Electoral college, I don't have THAT big of an issue with it in theory. The way we implement it though is chaotic and insane. I hate how candidates can be on the ballots of just a few states and not others. Why not have a universal candidate list? The states can create a list of candidates that they want on the ballot and the official candidate list could be the five most popular candidates.

In addition to a universal list, each states' electors should rank each candidate relative to the state election results. The Electoral College would then elect the President using the Condorcet method. This way, the election wouldn't get thrown to the house if no candidate got the majority. This is only really useful though if the state uses approval voting, range voting, or the Condorcet method to determine the ranking order. If FPTP is used, it can really help unpopular candidates get elected.

How in the hell did you not understand the electoral college question from the Athiest? You are a political blogger? Pull your head from your ass before you start questioning other people's intelligence. Damn I'd be fucking embarrassed if I were you.

Brandon @ 8 said:

Damn I'd be fucking embarrassed if I were you.

Oddly enough, I'm not at all. But do be sure to tell your friend "The Amazing Athiest" that he should accept my offer to have the discussion with him one-on-one. Haven't heard back from him since I made the offer for some reason.

Blahface @ 7:

The biggest obstacle for third parties is our first-past-the-post voting system that forces us to vote for the lesser of two evils. It really annoyed me how Brad acted as if all we had to do to get 3rd parties elected was to vote for them.

Worked for Jesse Ventura. Would likely work in a Presidential election if everyone stoppepd telling themselves that a vote for a 3rd Party is a "wasted vote" --- as I noted during the show.

He said something along the lines of “you don't get any prize for voting for the guy who is winning.” That misses the point. If we don't vote for the lesser of two evils, we risk electing the very worst candidate.

There is always risk in a democracy. That said...

I agree with Cenk that money is a problem

...Of course it is...The biggest. That said...

The most pragmatic solution is to have an open primary with approval voting and let the two most approved candidates face off in the general election. That way, we have the two best candidates competing against each other.

...I was all ready to hear you argue for IRV or RCV so was delighted to see you point to approval voting instead! Thank you! That alone gives me reason to take the time to explain what I didn't get to explain --- thanks to the format, and the particular mix of the panel, etc. --- during the show.

My point to The Amazing Atheist, which I didn't get to make in full (you'll note me twice during the conversation trying to get in a word edgewise) was that pushing the "Blue guy in a Red district", Red/Blue, Right/Left, Dem/GOP, Con/Lib paradigm is precisely the problem that he'd very much like to end. So would I! But the two-party duopoly is not ended by playing into it, as he did in his question.

Yes, a third party can win. As I said, just ask Jesse Ventura. But not as long as we all have the Red/Blue or Wasted Vote mentality. Moreover, to the part of the point I did manage to get out to TAA, yes, sometimes you lose in a "Red" district, if you are a "Blue" voters. But that changes all the time when a good candidate steps up and makes their case. And to roll over and say, "What's the use, I'm blue in a red district!" is simply self-defeating and foolish.

I didn't get to speak to the Electoral College question at all (the other two on the panel did), even as TAA's fans are reaming my ass for my response there. Lack of response is more like it! But they seem to be stuck on the fact that I called him an "asshole". Ya think fans of his, of all people, would have a bit thicker skin and be able to take it as well as he shovels it out. I suspect he can. His fans, however, don't seem to have much of that ability, unfortunately.

In any case, I've invited him to do a mano-a-mano on the topic, though haven't heard back from him since I sent him the invite. Hope you'll feel free to encourage him to take me up on it, if you happen to be a fan of his. I think it would be an excellent and very health conversation/debate/discussion to have!

I'm even more than happy to let him set the ground rules and bring all of his fans along for questions as well!

I hate how candidates can be on the ballots of just a few states and not others. Why not have a universal candidate list? The states can create a list of candidates that they want on the ballot and the official candidate list could be the five most popular candidates.

Because that would require a Constitutional Amendment (nothing wrong with that, but it's not as easy as snapping fingers, or otherwise getting Congressional approval or something, which is next to impossible for anything these days, much less an idea that would challenge the two-party duopoly!)

Anyway, thanks for the good discussion. Sorry more of TAA's fans didn't see fit to try it! But then again, I did call their hero an "asshole", so can we really blame them? (Sure, why not? TAA would!)

Condorcet voting is probably the best method, but only theoretically. The complexity of counting with more than a small number of candidates and not a whole lot of voters is just too daunting to contemplate in the real world.

As a committed atheist myself, I can't stand TAA, and was glad to hear Brad just flat out call him out.