Actually, I think the smaller states will be more in favour of the abandonment than one might think. Because especially the smaller states have been marginalized by the modern electoral system. As the spending map I posted earlier has shown, the majority of the states is sidelined in attention and money. Montana and Alaska aren't really worth anybodies time and money now, but with some change to the system, they can become "part" of the electoral campaign again.

And you don't need to abolish the system, just amend it. "Simply" removing the "winner takes it all" ruling most still have. But I don't see that happening on a state level as blue states want to keep their big numbers and red states are usually very small in electoral votes anyway.

But I can see such an constitutional amendment happening passed on a federal level. Especially if you keep the wording vague enough to keep some leeway. California and Texas would have a massively different campaign if electoral seat would be given by proportion there.

I would even go further and change the congress elections (probably more important). I would encourage something similar to the German system (no surprise ;-). Half of the congressional seats in each state are voted like they are now (but their districts get doubled in seize). For this, half of the congress seats in each state get assigned proportionally by popular vote. With this, you would have stronger third parties. This would in the current scenario take some heat of the GOP by turning the Tea Party in an actual party (which would imo fail pretty fast without the support of the "proper" GOP).

You have to remember, the current German system was hugely influenced by US political science, so it isn't as absurd as one might think.

Also, for congress, increase the time a member is elected to 4 years, maybe even five. Two years is by far not enough to get anything properly done besides campaigning.

Edit: Obviously this has to happen on a federal level. Which is also the biggest problem. Europeans have the get past there fear of an evil supra-EU which restricts their rights.

It's usually pretty difficult to oust a sitting president unless the entire country is in bad enough shape (usually economically) for people to be feeling the pain in their everyday lives (the last 1-term president was George Bush, when he got beat by Clinton in 1992, with the state of the economy being a large factor in the election). This election the state of the economy actually gave challengers a very good shot of beating Obama; basically it was the Republican's election to lose, which they certainly managed to do (most of the more serious candidates are probably waiting until the next election when they'll have a better shot, so instead we basically got to see a who's who of the republican party's rejects).

Again, it's like we're speaking different languages. You're talking about something 'modern' as if that automatically makes it 'better.' That may be true, but it's not a given.

We have things the way they are for a reason. That can change, but generally we don't change it without an equally compelling reason.

In this case, it was part of a bargain with smaller states to get them to embrace the federal union. So going against it means voiding our contracts with those states. Puerto Rico remains a U.S. territory, but not a State. Thus it has certain benefits that the States have, but is not represented in the U.S. Congress, and cannot vote for President, etc.

So I wasn't the only one who had that feeling.

NEWT 2016

I was actually just talking with some folks about this earlier. While I agree that Republican alliance with Evangelicals that Reagan formed in the '80s has probably outlived its usefulness to the GOP, I am uncertain that fiscal policies alone would allow the Party to win the Presidency. There would need to be something else added if Evangelicals are remove in order to seal the deal. I am not sure what that added thing would need to be, however.

I'm not sure, but isn't the problem that constitutional amendments in the US are very, very hard to pass? I think you need both a majority in the Senate and the House, as well as two thirds of the states, right?

Can't see that happening in the near future.
I guess both Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will campaign in 2016, and I would say both of them have a pretty decent chance of winning, would you agree?

I support more parties than the two we effectively have, because I believe that will create a much better government. I believe that the lack of voter turnout is because of the shitty government we have. What good is voting when they both screw us over? By create a better government, hopefully by creating a legitimate third party, I believe that we'll get better voter turnout because the politicians will hopefully make better choices and we'll be able to vote for someone who represents a position closer to ours. That said, I think throwing away your vote when you could have a great influence on the national election is stupid.

Therefore, I believe a show of support for third parties in states like Texas is highly beneficial. A show of support for third parties in a swing state when you could have big impact in the race is just shooting yourself in the foot.

I highly doubt Gore would have attack Iraq because there was very little reason to do so and he would not have had the same outside influences that Bush did. Also drone use did begin under the Bush administration, it was just widely expanded under the Obama administration.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see either of them making a bid for the presidency, although as to the chances of them winning, that depends entirely upon the state of the country 4 years down the line and who the Democrats end up fielding (as well as whether they even manage to make it through the republican primaries, which for all we know might end up turning into even more of a circus).

Publicans get to tuck tail and run once again. Almost like they need to rethink their party philosophy.

Damn happy with Obama's win. Nuff said.

I never understood why they are pandering to the right anyway? Who is the right going to vote, Hillary 2016?

While it might lead to an increased voter turnout for the GOP, it also mobilizes the oppositions. I'm fairly certain that the pandering to the extreme right lost this election, as it mobilized the classic democratic voters out of fear for what to come.

Their xenophobia and thinly veiled racism is also hindering them. Latinos are a very catholic and conservative demographic. Also, the African American communities are in their values often more conservative than their voting suggests. But by pandering to extreme right, the GOP also lost their votes.
It all comes down as how unhappy everybody is. Dems were always in favour of some changes (even before 2000). But if Romney now loses the electoral but wins the popular election there will be a lot of axe grinding.

Chris Christie certainly, but I am not so sure about Jeb Bush. While I like Jeb (far more than his brother Dubya), I don't think another Bush can win the Presidency any time soon; too many hard feelings. Republicans may try to nominate Bush, but I don't think it will come to pass. Republicans, when push comes to shove, generally try to put forth the most electable of the choices. As they say: Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

I know that that's the current state of Puerto Rico, but my question was if that is that likely to change now?

Pretty much my thoughts. If the GOP would relax on social issues like immigration, they would probably get the majority if the important Latino votes.

Didn't Bush win the Latinos by promising the illegal immigrants amnesty?

It may. From what I read, Puerto Rico voted to become a state. Now we have to decide whether or not we'll accept that choice. Before their vote Obama said he would respect whatever decision they made. I would say they have a good chance at becoming the 51st state of the United States.

Edit: Sorry, Obama actually said that he would support what they decided if there was a clear majority. Little bit of a difference.

He did well with Latinos because he fought for immigration reform even though nothing passed. This did put Bush at odds with many Republicans though.

Interesting, and almost bigger news than the presidential election, in my humble opinion. Well, he managed to get two terms with this tactic, so I guess he wasn't to wrong about it.