Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Republicans attempt to change electoral collage

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
January 25, 2013 1:40:48 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-v...

And notice the states they are focusing on: Michigan, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio: Reliably Democratic states where the majority of congressional districts have been broken up in such a way where the vast majority are safe Republican. Had this system been in place in 2012, guess what? Romney wins a landslide election!

In short: Republicans essentially want to move to a Parliamentary Democracy, where the Presidential election is basically a re-hash of the House elections.

And what WILL come of this, is Democrats will push for Federal oversight of the voting system, probably pushing a national ID and a uniform voting standard, and the states will probably have a giant hissy fit as a result.
January 25, 2013 2:01:49 PM

Yeah this district with 50,000 people has the same electoral vote as a district with 500,000 people. Makes perfect sense. ..

If you cant win, cheat.
January 25, 2013 2:30:04 PM

Its either that or count latino's as 1/3 a vote.
Related resources
January 25, 2013 3:46:01 PM

How is it the most fair? On the surface it looks to me that certain votes will count more than others.

Look at my example above 50,000 votes in a district (THIS IS ALL EXAMPLE) gets you 3 electoral votes, 500,000 votes in a district gets you .... 3 electoral votes.
January 25, 2013 4:26:17 PM

Lol, totally fair. Lets redistrict so most districts go red and then count presidential elections by districts. Talk about a loaded system derived by corruption. Yet you somehow think its fair. If 95% of the population lives in a blue district and the 5% makes up the other 12 districts then how is that fair? Its simple math OMG.
January 25, 2013 4:31:38 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
It's fair by district. 13 districts in my state. Northern VA and Hampton Roads is blue. The rest of the states districts are red. The blue districts go to the Dems, the red districts go to the repubs. Seems totally fair to me.

It works that way in red states too.


So, if 53% of the state votes for the Democrat, the electoral votes go mostly to the Republicans due to the congressional district breakdown (10-3). That's fair? How is that even REMOTELY democratic? Using that math, the Democrat who gets 53% of the vote gets 23% of the electoral votes. See the problem here?

Let me be clear: This is little more then Republicans trying to steal elections because they are basically non-competitive nationally now. Rather then admit the public doesn't agree with them, they are changing the rules to make them more competitive, but ONLY in states they are currently non-competitive in. After all, its not like you'll see these "reforms" in Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, Missouri, and so on.

Which all goes back to my argument that because gerrymandering has already destroyed Democracy, both the electoral college and the House of Representatives must go.

And let me be clear: If this goes down, you WILL see Democrats (and maybe Senate Republicans, who would feel statewide wrath in these states from voters) push for national election reform, and you WILL see things get real ugly real fast.
January 25, 2013 4:35:50 PM

Anyone else think its a big coincidence that Romney would have won under these new rules?

Which is scary considering Romney's own kid said he had never seen anyone who wanted to be president less.
January 25, 2013 4:59:40 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Screw it! The Democraps and leftists have been playing dirty ball forever. It's time the repubs get into the game and play for keeps for once.

I say do it repubs!!


YEAH! F*ck the democratic process!
January 25, 2013 5:11:52 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Screw it! The Democraps and leftists have been playing dirty ball forever. It's time the repubs get into the game and play for keeps for once.

I say do it repubs!!


The truth comes out at last. Thank you! My hand was hurting from the faceplamage of your previous posts.
January 25, 2013 5:16:38 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Screw it! The Democraps and leftists have been playing dirty ball forever. It's time the repubs get into the game and play for keeps for once.

I say do it repubs!!


Yep, basically "We're constantly loosing, so obviously they are cheating, because we are right damnit!"
January 25, 2013 5:18:06 PM

A simple solution to this, of course, would be to define HOW districts are crated via an act of Congress, thus restoring some equity (and likely stopping this in its tracts).

Easiest solution would be to force a "Moment of Inertia" method of creating districts, as outlined here: http://math.stanford.edu/~dankane/COMAP07.pdf
January 25, 2013 5:18:47 PM

Keep criticism constructive. Attack the idea, not the person.

Don't engage in personal attacks. Resist the urge to call the other poster a Communist Tree-hugging Baby-killing Drug-Dealing Islamofascist bleeding-heart Hippie or a Right-wing gun-toting redneck homophobic bigoted warmongering corporate-bought racist. Leave the labels for each other at the door.

Avoid generalizations directed to groups of people.

Avoid regurgitating talking points from either side.

If it fits on a bumper sticker, keep it there - not here. This is an area for rational, reasonable, intelligent discussion of the merits and flaws of a given political viewpoint. Leave the pile of cliche' sayings at the door with the labels. Love it or leave it, from my cold dead hands, for the children or the terrorists win.

Don't post angry. It will come across in your post and reduces the quality of the discussion. Lose your composure and your side loses.

www.tomshardware.com/forum/955-65-politics-forum-guidel...
January 25, 2013 5:39:38 PM

Straight from the US Constitution:

Quote:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.


Again: If Republicans want to give electorates by District, then Democrats are simply going to mandate HOW said districts are created. Assuming you go with some variant of the "Moment of Inertia" formula, all those rural Republican districts would be collapsed into just a handful, while the big cities get their "proper" representation in Congress.

My point being: If Republicans push this, Democrats WILL modify the districts over their heads, and simple demographics will dictate Republicans will NEVER hold government power again.
January 25, 2013 6:56:15 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Ever heard of ACORN? No? interesting........


First and formost, they were exonerated for any wrongdoing. Remember It is NOT their job to investigate any voter-fraud incidents. Heck, they, like all other groups like them, are REQUIRED BY LAW to submit every voter application form that is correctly filled out. It is the job of the STATES voter registration board to verify the people listed on said applications actually exist.

So just another red-herring by Republicans to try and deny minorities the right to vote.

Also, FYI: I work with a "Mickey Mousse" and a "John Doe", so would you have their voter registration forms thrown out automatically because of their names? THAT'S the entire point here: Who's responsibility it is the oversee the process.

Quote:
Assuming democrats hold the majority in Congress can they do that.


Well, if the economy recovers (which it looks like it is), where do you think house races will tilt in 2014? Also, don't be shocked if the remaining moderate Republicans like this, since it protects them from radicalized districts.
January 25, 2013 11:48:03 PM

gamerk316 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-v...

And notice the states they are focusing on: Michigan, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio: Reliably Democratic states where the majority of congressional districts have been broken up in such a way where the vast majority are safe Republican. Had this system been in place in 2012, guess what? Romney wins a landslide election!

In short: Republicans essentially want to move to a Parliamentary Democracy, where the Presidential election is basically a re-hash of the House elections.


The problem that the proposal is really trying to address is that a handful of large cities control the politics of the entire nation. The latest U.S. population figures are that the country has 315,214,000 people. Two metro areas (NYC and LA) contain over 10% of the nation's population (31.96M people). The 10 largest metropolitan areas have just under a quarter of the nation's population. The largest 41 metro areas contain over half of the nation's population and many of these areas are located in just a handful of states- CA, NY, TX, and FL. The U.S. is a very large and diverse country. Having people in just 41 cities mainly located in just a handful of states determine the policy of the entire country is not a good recipe as it is mob rule running over people who live in other areas with vastly different wants and needs. Also, the wants and needs of small-town and rural dwellers is considerably different from urban dwellers even in the same state. They are outnumbered so they are stuck paying state taxes for buses that don't leave the urban areas 100 miles away for them, while the road in front of their house crumbles.

The real solution to this problem is to have politics and spending return "closer to home." The vast majority of what the feds currently do can and should be done by the states. There is no reason that the states cannot have their own EPA, Department of Education, welfare programs, transportation departments, etc. In fact, the counties within the states should be the ones with the largest budgets as that is the closest to home and therefore the most likely to be the most responsive to the constituents. The feds are really only needed to do things the states cannot individually do- conduct foreign affairs and manage conflicts between the states. That was well spelled out in the 10th Amendment and we would have avoided this problem if we had actually followed it rather than using a bunch of mental gymnastics to use the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause to essentially invalidate it. The states should mainly serve to do the things individual counties cannot, such as manage relations with other states and to manage conflicts between the counties. Presently counties don't do that much as much of the power they used to have has been appropriated by the states, just like the feds appropriated much of the states' former power. So you end up with the situation where federal officials from a few large cities in CA, NY, FL, and TX are deciding what is in your child's textbooks and lunches rather than your school district.

Quote:
And what WILL come of this, is Democrats will push for Federal oversight of the voting system, probably pushing a national ID and a uniform voting standard, and the states will probably have a giant hissy fit as a result.


No. The Democrats won't push for this for two reasons. One, having voter IDs and a uniform voting standard would very likely reduce the number of Democrat votes and possibly impair their re-election. That is why they fought the efforts to do just that with various voter ID and fraud laws in several states. Two, the Republicans made a big deal of being in favor of voter IDs and uniform standards. The Democrats won't get behind an issue the Republicans are behind, solely because the Republicans are behind it. To be fair, the Republicans do the same.
January 26, 2013 12:45:57 AM

gamerk316 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-v...

And notice the states they are focusing on: Michigan, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio: Reliably Democratic states where the majority of congressional districts have been broken up in such a way where the vast majority are safe Republican. Had this system been in place in 2012, guess what? Romney wins a landslide election!

In short: Republicans essentially want to move to a Parliamentary Democracy, where the Presidential election is basically a re-hash of the House elections.

And what WILL come of this, is Democrats will push for Federal oversight of the voting system, probably pushing a national ID and a uniform voting standard, and the states will probably have a giant hissy fit as a result.
The GOP Party is so disarrayed it is not funny. They will sink to the lowest depth and do whatever it takes to win states in the coming election in 2016.
January 26, 2013 12:54:53 AM

In Minniesoda, they didnt want mandated health care, as they havetheir own here.
Minniesoda has done much of what youve said MU, and yes, its taxes are high here, BUT, even tho liberal, they get a much better bang for their buck.
They dont want a no hands on approach, being held by those in Washington, nor do they want the trickle tax monies to run their state, cant say the same for other states
January 26, 2013 12:56:34 AM

I have a better idea:

Ditch the party system and have the majority vote rule.

No more Dems and Repubs vying for 'red' or 'blue' districts and monopolizing them, no redistricting, and no more crap about this unfair electoral college.

Of course, my Poly sci instructor did say that the reason for the colleges was to prevent any chaos that would ensue, because the Founders knew the people were too stupid.
January 26, 2013 2:52:39 AM

dogman_1234 said:
I have a better idea:

Ditch the party system and have the majority vote rule.


That would be mob rule and it is something that the founders sought to try to avoid for good reason. Ben Franklin said it best with the "democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner" quote. What would happen is that the 50.0001% would completely ignore the other 49.9999% and completely trample their rights. (Think about how this would play out with the current debt/tax debate- the bottom 50.0001% would simply vote to seize the money of the top 49.9999% to keep their entitlements flowing, with little the 49.9999% could do about it.) The Constitution was written to make the country a republic rather than a democracy in order to give the minority enough power to keep from being trampled by the majority. That is why there is a Senate in addition to the House of Representatives, that is why there is an executive with veto power, and why the judicial system can overturn laws in certain circumstances.
January 26, 2013 5:03:42 PM

What I am tired of seeing is congressmen redistricting part of their state to get their party vote. Democrats who draw over blue parts and Republicans who redraw over red parts. They are completely monopolizing their votes!

I am also tired of congress not doing anything, and one person like me is not going to make a difference. Technically my vote and voice does not matter. I cannot change anything. I am at the will of the majority of the country. I feel like I should not care one way or the other. Just let whoever to run the country. It is not like I can do anything!
January 26, 2013 5:22:42 PM

The danger is,to congress et al, the more that feel they cant make a difference eventually will, because something or someone will come along and give the people its will again.
January 26, 2013 10:56:53 PM

wanamingo said:
Yeah this district with 50,000 people has the same electoral vote as a district with 500,000 people. Makes perfect sense. ..

If you cant win, cheat.
Great way of thinking for the people who vote. Cheat.What happened to honesty?
January 28, 2013 11:33:00 AM

Isnt this why we have local and state government?

January 28, 2013 12:11:23 PM

I think some prefer the usurption by the federal government of the states and their local municiplaities.
Or, they simply have been schooled this way, and simply dont know how it used to be, and find the usurptions adequate and preferable, and therefor the only logical way forwards, which isnt the case, as an ebb and flow needs to happen.
Just as the rights of a man to his horse has changed to the privilages of him and his car.

Some cant see this, as once writ, so must it always be so

PS

I would add, if this is all they expect out of our selected and elected paid for by us, and working for us pols, and their creations of inadequacies, then we deserve the government we get, as its a work in progress as some champoin, but only when its going their way, and leaves room for laziness from our officials, and allows them to seek office instead of our needs
January 28, 2013 12:37:43 PM

@ OMG
Maybe this is what it means:
"In this character of Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating factor...," he says. Its English origins account for this predominance, as well as for its being particularly bound up with the issue of taxation rather than other issues germane to freedom. The fact that American government is deeply representative of the populous also accounts for the American penchant for freedom, as do the Protestant religion in the north which loathes government control, and the slavery-based society in the south which harbors a palpable contempt for unfree people. Americans' high level of legal education make them zealous and able advocates of their rights. And the remoteness of America from the English government has also contributed its spirit of freedom.

http://foundersconstitution.blogspot.com/2008/03/edmund...
January 28, 2013 12:39:39 PM

Arent we talking about two different things?

I thought this was about the election, how will people vote themselves more money but voting for president?

Also Romney didnt want to president.....

And There is really no difference between the two.
January 28, 2013 12:48:58 PM

But that crosses with what written above, taxation and freedom
January 28, 2013 12:52:25 PM

MU_Engineer said:
That would be mob rule and it is something that the founders sought to try to avoid for good reason. Ben Franklin said it best with the "democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner" quote. What would happen is that the 50.0001% would completely ignore the other 49.9999% and completely trample their rights. (Think about how this would play out with the current debt/tax debate- the bottom 50.0001% would simply vote to seize the money of the top 49.9999% to keep their entitlements flowing, with little the 49.9999% could do about it.) The Constitution was written to make the country a republic rather than a democracy in order to give the minority enough power to keep from being trampled by the majority. That is why there is a Senate in addition to the House of Representatives, that is why there is an executive with veto power, and why the judicial system can overturn laws in certain circumstances.


What happens with those processes are hijacked in order to maintain power? We would have a situation where the minority takes way everything from the majority. Your looking at this from a one sided perspective, there has to be balance and letting one party redraw districts and then change the rules of an election to retain power is most certainly not balanced. Instead the party should adapt to the people's needs, but why do that when you can just cheat and retain power?

Republicans are where they are because they have angered latin americans.
Republicans are where they are because they have pushed away the female voters with their obstinance towards choices regarding abortion.
Republicans are where they are because they refuse to adapt to a new age of Americans.

Letting them rewrite the rules to retain power when they stand only for white religious groups would be a crime on our republic.
January 28, 2013 1:09:12 PM

Take care of the current dems favor from latinos
Take care from the lies told about positions supposedly taken by repubs by the MSM, and womens rights
Take care for this so called new age thinking, one, it isnt new, as the protests of the 60s, and the climb by those who once viewed such things with abhorations, cimbed to power, with supposed a new conciousness for a betterment of man.
History started when this started, and wont be easily forgotten, especially by those who question such things, or, the next generation, who, as always, blames the prior
January 28, 2013 1:17:14 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Take care of the current dems favor from latinos
Take care from the lies told about positions supposedly taken by repubs by the MSM, and womens rights
Take care for this so called new age thinking, one, it isnt new, as the protests of the 60s, and the climb by those who once viewed such things with abhorations, cimbed to power, with supposed a new conciousness for a betterment of man.
History started when this started, and wont be easily forgotten, especially by those who question such things, or, the next generation, who, as always, blames the prior


New age thinking is not hippie talk from the 60's JDJ. I know that you probably view it the same but I assure you it is not.
January 28, 2013 1:43:46 PM

So, in the 80s, when it started to seed its ideas, which at that time were matched by my experience as well as noted by others arent so are they?
Tree huggers, animal rights, womens rights, a so called new equality, which has sprung PC ideals, which is somewhat new, but a lessor "law" to be followed.
Sorry, Im too old for this to be new, and I guess you arent.
Now, everyone at the time didnt read nor comprehend what this all meant, nor did they pay much heed to it either, as it slowly made its way.
So yes, do entertain me in my age, as to whats different and new
January 28, 2013 1:45:29 PM

Quote:
*** McDonnell, Cuccinelli oppose electoral-vote change: Lastly, both Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli have come out in opposition of the Republican effort in the state to change how Virginia’s electoral votes are awarded. Folks, the effort in Virginia is dead. The question is whether Republicans in other states -- like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- are still thinking about pursuing the change. As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told Newsmax, per NBC's Sarah Blackwill: “It's an interesting idea. I haven't committed one way or the other to it. For me, and I think any other state considering this, you should really look at not just the short-term but the long-term implications. Is it better or worse for the electorate?”


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16737280-...

Translation: Anyone who has to get elected via statewide ballot opposes this measure. So this is basically dead in Virginia now.
January 28, 2013 1:48:00 PM

I agree gamer, by any side.
Its a slippery slope, as Ive pointed out other such things elsewheres.
January 28, 2013 1:48:35 PM

dogman_1234 said:
I am also tired of congress not doing anything


Well, the people decided to replace the most productive Congress in history with the least productive Congress in history, so I must conclude what should be obvious:

No matter how much everyone complains, deep down: THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT.

How can I say that? Because its what you voted for. This party paralysis? You voted for that. The deficit? You voted for that too. And so on and so forth. This is what you want.
January 28, 2013 1:53:32 PM

Personally I think it is what weve got as well, one being so active to raise the debt, the newly elected stopping it from more spending.
January 28, 2013 1:59:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Personally I think it is what weve got as well, one being so active to raise the debt, the newly elected stopping it from more spending.


Fun fact: Federal Spending Dropped 2% in 2010.

Another Fun Fact: The Deficit Rose 2% in 2010.

Hence my argument that cutting spending by X does NOT automatically decrease the deficit by X. It is perfectly possible (and likely, using Europe as an example of this) that cutting spending in the wrong areas would decrease economic growth to the point of decreasing tax revenue and INCREASING the deficit, while making the country poorer to boot.
January 28, 2013 2:13:10 PM

hence, it was an election year, and hence wasnt an odd year.
Look into those fun facts, and besides lame duckers, is when things really happen, preying on the electorates short memories.
The economy, or the revenues dropped didnt they?
Less capable to pay on the deficit, something we need to be somewhat shielded from, which calls for less spending.
When revenues drop, the current pace in spending needs to show it as well, to some degree, not an esculation.
Government isnt a value, there is nothing it physically makes, tho it does contribute in other ways, but not enough in business terms for viability
January 28, 2013 2:49:54 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
When revenues drop, the current pace in spending needs to show it as well, to some degree, not an esculation.


Europe tried that, and the entire continent continues to fall into the following trap:

1) Revenues decrease
2) Cut Spending
3) Economy slows
4) Revenue decrease
5) Cut Spending
6) Revenue slows

Rinse and repeat. Thats why England, for example, is one bad quarter away from entering a TRIPLE dip recession, and why every attempt by France/Italy/Ireland/Greece to cut the deficit by cutting spending is resulting in "larger then expected deficits" at the end of the year, requiring more cutting.

Recessions are ALWAYS cheaper by increasing spending and making them go away quicker, as the short term loss due to increased spending is offset by the more stable revenue stream.
January 28, 2013 2:52:39 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
K, try that in your own household. Keep just spending spending, run those credit cards up, go ahead money is cheap............at the moment.


Fail argument, because Federal Spending isn't a "Credit Card", as you claim.

A more correct argument would be to, for example, invest in a house, which is an investment, and can be sold later, at a profit. [Especially now, as prices have basically flatlined. Housing has never been a better investment then it is now.] In this case, you spend some money now to get more money later, thus increasing your net worth, even after the dollar amount of the debt has been factored in.
January 28, 2013 5:23:02 PM

An even better example to my previous: Take a company which is spending a lot of money (expenses) maintaining its own production facilities. The decision is made to cut these expenses by selling said facilities (increasing Revenue, once) and outsourcing the job to another company to do the actual production of their product.

Some time later, that production company goes bankrupt (for one reason or another). Now, that company can no longer produce its goods. As a result, company goes bankrupt.

In this case, cutting expenses ended up cutting into revenue, by a larger amount then not making the cut in the first place would have been.
January 28, 2013 5:59:05 PM

Interesting article...let me share some noteworthy quotes though...
Quote:
In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district
Hmm, seems more like a true democracy to me, after all if a democracy is defined as, "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." then it stands to reason that having the electoral votes apportioned by Congressional level is putting the power into the People's hands to ensure the politicians they freely elected are accurately representing them in Congress. Personally, I am not in favor of "winner takes all" apportionment, I'd much prefer it be broken down to the Congressional level, hence more closely to the People actually doing the voting, and therefore more reflective of the democratic process.
Quote:
(Reince Priebus) said Thursday: “For these states, it would make them more competitive, but it’s not our call to tell them how to apportion their votes.”
Are Democrats afraid of more competition? Are Democrats afraid of the electoral apportionment being more reflective of the People who actually do the voting? It seems to me that the true issue here is an ignorance of population shift between 2000 and 2010, the State level redistricting process, and how our democracy works and not so much a Republican conspiracy to steal elections. It seems to me the issue here is the hypocrisy of progressives and Democrats of being all for "one voice one vote" when it goes in their favor and not so much the Republicans wanting to apportion the electoral votes so it more closely aligns to how the People vote within their community.It seems to me that if the Democrats are really for "one voice one vote" they would support any action that puts the power of the vote back to the People.
Quote:
The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr., said he wants to give smaller communities a bigger voice. “The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them,” he said. “This is coming to me from not just my Republican constituents,” added Carrico...“I want to be a voice for a region that feels they have no reason to come to the polls.
Sounds like a Congressman who actually cares that ALL the votes of ALL the People in his District are fairly counted and accounted for. Are Democrats against ensuring that the votes of one person carries the same weight as the next?

gamerk316 said:
And notice the states they are focusing on: Michigan, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio: Reliably Democratic states where the majority of congressional districts have been broken up in such a way where the vast majority are safe Republican. Had this system been in place in 2012, guess what? Romney wins a landslide election!

In short: Republicans essentially want to move to a Parliamentary Democracy, where the Presidential election is basically a re-hash of the House elections.
I am not entirely surprised at the progressive reaction to making a national issue out of what essentially a State level issue. There is no national Republican cabal to remove Democrats from the electoral process or disenfranchise those who vote for Democrats. Any claim of gerrymandering is an ignorance of the State level redistricting process. It is a State's right, as written in the Constitution, to redistrict how they see fit; this is fact and can not be disputed. It is also fact that redistricting was left to the State's, and closer to the People, so the party in control was representative of the People who voted them into the majority.

As I explained in another thread where there were claims of Republican gerrymandering, the redistricting laws in New Jersey favor the incumbent party. So, in Municipalities where the People vote for more Republicans, the Congressional District favors Republicans, and conversely, in Municipalities where the People vote for more Democrats, the Congressional Districts favor Democrats. Do you get that, the Districts are representative of how the People vote for; no gerrymandering, no conspiracy, no vote stealing by one party or the other. It is the law and the redistricting process.

Here's two things to consider, 1) what the Republicans are proposing is not "rigging the system" or gerrymandering. IT IS THE SYSTEM! 2) living in New Jersey (which is a "Blue" state) we get ignored when it comes to the presidential campaign. Neither Obama or Romney visited New Jersey once! It is a given that NJ will go Democrat in the electoral college, therefore no politician feels the need to campaign for my vote. But, it is the winner take all approach that has lead to 40 States, like New jersey, being ignored by both parties during the entire campaign, because one party or another take it for granted they will win that State. If New Jersey apportioned electoral votes by Congressional District (like Republicans are proposing) then I might actually get to see a Presidential candidate stump in New Jersey and as a conservative in New Jersey, I might actually feel like my vote counts!

gamerk316 said:
And what WILL come of this, is Democrats will push for Federal oversight of the voting system, probably pushing a national ID and a uniform voting standard, and the states will probably have a giant hissy fit as a result.
HAHAHA! Oh man, that's just funny. Please do not be selectively ignorant. The fact that it was Democrats who opposed standardized Federal oversight and screamed bloody murder when Republicans proposed Voter ID laws in the November 2012 election. Ironically, Democrats had no problem with allowing the United Nations to oversee the 2012 elections and had no problems overseeing the voting process in Democrat controlled areas, but no way in Hades did they want Republicans overseeing the vote in a Republican District!

Fact is, if the Democrat reaction to this flimsy claim of Republican vote stealing was uniform voting standards, Voter ID, and bi-partisan Federal oversight, I would call every Republican Representative in Congress solely for the purpose of making Democrats actually proposing such legislation. And, if you believe Democrats would actually push for that legislation, I've got some land to sell you!
January 28, 2013 6:31:34 PM

36157,55,58039 said:
Interesting article...let me share some noteworthy quotes though...
Quote:
In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district
Hmm, seems more like a true democracy to me, after all if a democracy is defined as, "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." then it stands to reason that having the electoral votes apportioned by Congressional level is putting the power into the People's hands to ensure the politicians they freely elected are accurately representing them in Congress.

Translation: Even if the majority of the population of a state favors a given canadate, you would have no trouble with giving the majority of that states votes to the other guy, because...well...because...

So please, stop it. Congressional District != People. Its an arbitrary boundary created by those in power to enable them to stay in power.

Quote:
Personally, I am not in favor of "winner takes all" apportionment,


Probably because it doesn't favor your supported Candidates?

Quote:
I'd much prefer it be broken down to the Congressional level, hence more closely to the People actually doing the voting, and therefore more reflective of the democratic process.


How? Simple question: If 60% of the population were to vote for a candidate, and that candidate got less then 60% of the delegates, HOW IS THAT REFLECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?

Quote:
Are Democrats afraid of more competition? Are Democrats afraid of the electoral apportionment being more reflective of the People who actually do the voting?


The "people" voted for Obama, 53% to 47% nationally, and a majority of the people in the majority of the states (representation wise) favored Obama by at least 50.1%.

Under your system, Obama looses, despite the fact the majority of the people in the majority of the states voted for him. How does THAT reflect "the will of the people"?

It seems to me that the true issue here is an ignorance of population shift between 2000 and 2010, the State level redistricting process, and how our democracy works and not so much a Republican conspiracy to steal elections. It seems to me the issue here is the hypocrisy of progressives and Democrats of being all for "one voice one vote" when it goes in their favor and not so much the Republicans wanting to apportion the electoral votes so it more closely aligns to how the People vote within their community.

Translation: You want the vote proportioned along the lines of the gerrymandering Republicans did in 2000/2010.

Quote:
It seems to me that if the Democrats are really for "one voice one vote" they would support any action that puts the power of the vote back to the People.


No, we support having their vote taken away by conservative extremists.

Quote:
The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr., said he wants to give smaller communities a bigger voice. “The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them,” he said. “This is coming to me from not just my Republican constituents,” added Carrico...“I want to be a voice for a region that feels they have no reason to come to the polls.


Translation: The Republican Party is non-competitive at the state level, and rather then adjust its stance and support polices the public at large supports, they instead want to rig elections so they can stay in power.


I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your rant; its clear you'd rather destroy Democracy and put a one-party dictatorship in place.
[/quote]
January 28, 2013 6:45:26 PM

@chunky: Here's a really simple scenario for you, followed by a question:

Take two theoretical states, each with 1 Million residents. Assume 100% voter turnout (just to make this a simple example). Assume 450k registered to each party, and 100k independent voters. Assume 4 electoral votes up for grabs (1 per 250k).

State 1 has a perfectly flat population distribution.
State 2 has 750k citizens located in a single city, with the other 250k distributed throughout the other parts of the state.

Now then, under the current electoral system, both states would be "competitive", as one would expect 10% of the population to determine the final outcome of the vote. In short: Both states would be "swing" states most every election.

Under your system, State 1 would be competitive at the congressional district level. State 2, however, would be expected to split its electoral votes 3-1 in favor of Republicans every electoral cycle (as the city would be where the Democratic vote is centered).


So now I ask you: How is this more "fair" then the system that is currently in place? Why should DISTRIBUTION of a states population affect the vote outcome of a STATEWIDE election?
January 28, 2013 7:32:52 PM

gamerk316 said:
An even better example to my previous: Take a company which is spending a lot of money (expenses) maintaining its own production facilities. The decision is made to cut these expenses by selling said facilities (increasing Revenue, once) and outsourcing the job to another company to do the actual production of their product.

Some time later, that production company goes bankrupt (for one reason or another). Now, that company can no longer produce its goods. As a result, company goes bankrupt.

In this case, cutting expenses ended up cutting into revenue, by a larger amount then not making the cut in the first place would have been.

Now now now, Mr big government, slow my monies down towards DC there will ya?
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_r...
Notice anything?
The amounts of taxation to GDP?
That on average, its more than 40%?
the US?
24%.
Germany, a leading, or THE leading economic force, upper 30%, or lowest.
So, the investment of socialism requires them to go in this direction, and is something we need to avoid, period
January 28, 2013 8:31:07 PM

johnsonma said:
What happens with those processes are hijacked in order to maintain power? We would have a situation where the minority takes way everything from the majority. Your looking at this from a one sided perspective, there has to be balance and letting one party redraw districts and then change the rules of an election to retain power is most certainly not balanced. Instead the party should adapt to the people's needs, but why do that when you can just cheat and retain power?


Note that I said in my first post that the idea to enumerate electors by Congressional district was *not* a good one. My solution was to move power more locally.

Quote:
Republicans are where they are because they have angered latin americans.
Republicans are where they are because they have pushed away the female voters with their obstinance towards choices regarding abortion.
Republicans are where they are because they refuse to adapt to a new age of Americans.


Only the last one is true. The first two are simply scare tactics of the Democrats as they pander to a certain voting bloc. The second one is particularly wrong as that whole brouhaha is simply because the Republicans opposed forcing private insurers to pay for contraceptives. There is no "banning" going on any more than you not being forced to buy me a candy bar "bans" me from having a candy bar.

America has certainly changed from a society that used to value hard work, independence, and ambition to one that is European in its general laziness, dislike of those who do succeed, and entitlement mindset. The Republicans are trying to emphasize the principles of hard work, independence, and ambition to the new age of "where's my free Obamaphone?" crowd is what is sinking them right now. Everybody loves the guy that gives out free stuff. The problem is that it is not really even sustainable in the short term, let alone the long term. The Republicans are playing the long game and it is hurting them in the short term. But they WILL come out on top in the end once our credit rating sinks past Greece's and the free stuff gravy train grinds to a smoking halt.
January 28, 2013 8:42:52 PM

Remember this tho, the progressives are embracing a smaller government form here by rejecting a change in the electoral college setup.
When its convenient for some, this will work, so, it seems our old ways still work, and shame on the flip floppers.
I agree with MU, having a more local, true representation is whats most effective, and tho the current system doesnt reflect this, changing it wont either, not this way at least
January 28, 2013 8:49:13 PM

This reminds me in a way of what happened when I lived in Cali, and there was a prop to give union members the option to either not pay for pol contributions, or aim them as seen fit.
The unions went beserk over this, as theyre owned and play ball with the dems, and use their favor, and would be seen as a loss of "power" (read money) by them.
This is simply a checks and balance set up by our founders, tho, at the time, the federal wasnt to be as , nor was, expanded as what we have today, small part thru neccesity, large part thru our laziness, and deserve what weve wrought
January 29, 2013 12:51:44 PM

Regarding Ohio, it is a swing state and until Obama, was going Republican.

The redistricting was designed to split up heavy republican and democrat sections. For example, many districts were so big that farmers were paired up with people in the city. Well, the city wins over the farmers when it comes to addressing issues. So they split that up so each has their own voice. It actually gave the proper amount of power to many of the farmers who had been unheard for so long.
Along the coast, it tended to be Democrats. Republicans redrew the lines to allow the coast to be a democratic district and then a few miles inland where the farmers were, it was changed over to republican districts. Prior, farmers were being outweighed because of how the districts were drawn.

Ohio's population has gone down and it lost 2 electoral votes. People who left were like me, from the city. Why should the farmers who continue to stay lose any say when the people in the city are the ones leaving?
January 29, 2013 12:56:27 PM

MU_Engineer said:


Quote:
Republicans are where they are because they have angered latin americans.
Republicans are where they are because they have pushed away the female voters with their obstinance towards choices regarding abortion.
Republicans are where they are because they refuse to adapt to a new age of Americans.


Only the last one is true. The first two are simply scare tactics of the Democrats as they pander to a certain voting bloc. The second one is particularly wrong as that whole brouhaha is simply because the Republicans opposed forcing private insurers to pay for contraceptives. There is no "banning" going on any more than you not being forced to buy me a candy bar "bans" me from having a candy bar.

America has certainly changed from a society that used to value hard work, independence, and ambition to one that is European in its general laziness, dislike of those who do succeed, and entitlement mindset. The Republicans are trying to emphasize the principles of hard work, independence, and ambition to the new age of "where's my free Obamaphone?" crowd is what is sinking them right now. Everybody loves the guy that gives out free stuff. The problem is that it is not really even sustainable in the short term, let alone the long term. The Republicans are playing the long game and it is hurting them in the short term. But they WILL come out on top in the end once our credit rating sinks past Greece's and the free stuff gravy train grinds to a smoking halt.


Scare tactics? Really? It seems to me that you have bought into the rhetoric. Ever heard of pro-life? Do you not know the platform from which republicans ALWAYS run? Do you not remember the rape comments that republicans continue to make? I don't know if your in denial or just messing with me to get a rise of out me but either way you're completely wrong. Look at the voting numbers, who did women vote for????

Who did latin americans vote for? Probably because while Obama said their kids could stay as long as they do good in school, republicans were saying they wanted to kick every last one of them out.

Republicans are dead in the water unless they update their decades old platform. Getting some real leaders would help too. People like palin, bachmann, and perry are not the kind of people that should be leading the republican party.

The entire reason they want to change the voting system is so they can remain competitive without having to change. Sorry, but if they do this then they no longer represent the people and do not deserve to be acknowledged in our political discourse, unless of course were talking about the south or rural areas.
!