Changing the electoral college system is stupid. Just make it so that the electoral college is elected from percentages of the popular vote, not just winner takes all. Thats the problem that is alienating large states and creating a handful of swing states, like ohio, that matter more than other states.

It's stupid how you only need 11 states to win the house. It needs to be by popular vote, else 4/5ths of America's voice doesn't count.

GARY JOHNSON 2012!

I'm just saying that percentage-based electoral college representations is the more immediate fix for voter alienation, an amendment like that would take forever. And its much more controversial. Some people think that direct popular vote is more subject to corruption, go read the federalist papers sometime, thats one of the reasons the constitution was ratified.

lol

Will be casting my absolutely meaningless NY vote for Obama tomorrow. And yes, for the people who have been saying it, the way we elect a president is stupid and broken.

It had happened before when bill clinton beat george bush. I forgot his name but he created an independent party that leaned towards the right but was very centered. He split the votes with Bush which is why Clinton won.

The reason why is because its cost a lot money to create a party.

Oh and another thing, the majority/all of kids and teenagers haven't lived enough or learned enough to debate and think thoroughly. So its not just "graal kids". And in fact, there are adults that don't think thoroughly on these issues as well. Some reasons are that its because they have jobs and are busy. "hopefully there aren't any adults playing the game"

That is why i think its good that there are these discussions so everyone can put their opinion and others can break it down and give them a better perspective/different perspective. Everyone is going to make a misjudgement so its better to learn from mistakes at a young age so we can know better in the future to think things through carefully.

First of all, Fiat is an Italian based company. You cant outsource to your own country. Outsourcing means that you are moving jobs out of a country because it is cheaper. So the country that outsourced, actually lost jobs. Because we account for people that are working in a country not company when talking American jobs.

I think what you where trying to say was that the company had outsourced the majority of its jobs elsewhere so as a whole the Company could have held its own without an American bailout.

But the economic crisis was worldwide so whether a bailout was needed in my opinion was just so that more jobs could be created in his attempt to stimulate the american economy. When jobs are created, more money is put into people's pockets which increases spending, with in turn moves the economy. Did he need to give them that much money? I don't know.

Incase you were not aware Fiat bought out over half of Chrysler...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7804697&page=1

The fact that America is split roughly equally into two parties which blame each other for things they both do cannot be a coincidence. The two parties distract us from the fact that there are no real political parties anymore, corporations run America's political parties and have for decades. Also, the US voting system really only supports a two-party system.

Unrelated to the current topic within the thread, but I found this interesting article:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...lection/58414/

It is not bias, since it discusses data only. If all states that are Democractic stay Democratic, and if all states that are Republican stay Republican, Obama has an 84.2% chance of winning, while Romney has a 14.8% chance (1.0% tie).

Voted for Obama but was hoping for a neither option...

It doesn't cost a ton to make a new party, the problem is that the democratic and republican parties have the most exposure already and have the backing to outspend any smaller, lesser known party. The reason more moderate candidates still choose either side is because they will get more publicity and attention. In other words wtf are you talking about.

Another kind of off topic article but thought this on was interesting too
http://www.nydailynews.com/1.1196661#bmb=1

I can't believe you still didn't get my point, of depending on your philosophy and viewpoint, even what seems like factual information can be skewed to ones favor subconsciously. That article is biased. I guess people like this that are biased (Heck, I am to to some extent, but I try to open my mind to the best of my ability) will never learn what I'm talking about. If you reply saying that its "Statistics" and not real bias, then your mind is so clouded there's no point talking to you.

Today is the day...