Repubs want to change electorial college
Lets look at how this would have played out in Pennsylvania, one of the states being talked about. In 2012 president Obama won Pennsylvania by 320,000 votes, over Mitt Romney or won by about 6%, a pretty decent margin. he collected all 23 Pennsylvania electoral votes. Under the republican plan, Mitt Romney despite losing the vote in the state by over 300,000 votes and 6%, would have received 18 of Pa's electoral votes, while Obama received 5.
I am not the least bit surprised by this. The republicans looking at the unfavorable changing demographics are trying to change the election process and prevent people from voting.
You can also look at it the other way; why should Obama get all 23 electoral votes in a state where he didn't come anywhere near getting 100% of the vote?
Little-known fact: nowhere in the Constitution or laws of the USA does it say that popular vote needs to have anything to do with deciding who the electors from each state are, or how they vote. (Senators and Representatives, on the other hand, must be elected by direct vote of the people.)
Quote: ThatDonGuyLittle-known fact: nowhere in the Constitution or laws of the USA does it say that popular vote needs to have anything to do with deciding who the electors from each state are, or how they vote. (Senators and Representatives, on the other hand, must be elected by direct vote of the people.)
And we've seen electors vote against their states' popular votes before. They're called "faithless electors". It's allowed, but it's a good way to guarantee you will not get re-elected.
"Winner-take-all" has been around a long time but apparently was not what the founders thought would happen:
http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/
The proposed method looks like it would cast the vote from each Congressional district based on the results in that district.
The way that is proposed doesn't sound completely fair either--
President Obama won 52% of the vote and 2,907,448 actual votes
Governor Romney won 46.8% of the vote and 2,619,583 actual votes
President Obama would have gotten 78% of the electoral votes and Governor Romney, 22%
So...some don't want "winner-take-all", some don't want the current system, and some don't want it by Congressional Districts.
You can say the Republicans favor something "unfair" in your mind, but what is fair? If the Democrats won a resounding margin of victory in the house and ended up with the 78/22 split in a 52/47 election, what do you think they would do? BOTH parties are going to jockey for positions that favor them.
What goes along with the "original intent" of the Constitution? What is most fair (most likely a system that makes both parties equally unhappy)?
I do enjoy how people just toss out the lie that Republicans are trying to prevent people from voting. It is an easy thing to say, but it is a pile of crap. A couple people said stupid things--and Democrats have said PLENTY of stupid things...but that doesn't make some huge conspiracy to take away anyone's right to vote legally!
(edited)
Quote: ThatDonGuy
You can also look at it the other way; why should Obama get all 23 electoral votes in a state where he didn't come anywhere near getting 100% of the vote?
Because that is the way it is currently done by 48 of the 50 states and the 2 that don't Maine and Nebraska are so small that it is unlikely to make much difference. Basically what you have is one side wanting to change the agreed upon rules that have been in existence for a couple centuries to benefit themselves. That pretty much equates to trying to steal elections, no?
The way that things are with democrats crammed into a small number of congressional districts, (cities), if every state were to go to such a proportional method, it would be a common occurrence for a democrat to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. As a matter of fact a democrat could win the popular vote by a very wide margin say 60% and still lose the electoral vote. Doesn't the concept of the minority ruling fly in the face of the basis of democracy?
Quote: kewljBecause that is the way it is currently done by 48 of the 50 states and the 2 that don't Maine and Nebraska are so small that it is unlikely to make much difference. Basically what you have is one side wanting to change the agreed upon rules that have been in existence for a couple centuries to benefit themselves. That pretty much equates to trying to steal elections, no?
The way that things are with democrats crammed into a small number of congressional districts, (cities), if every state were to go to such a proportional method, it would be a common occurrence for a democrat to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. As a matter of fact a democrat could win the popular vote by a very wide margin say 60% and still lose the electoral vote. Doesn't the concept of the minority ruling fly in the face of the basis of democracy?
"The version I learned was," the intent of the Electoral College was to prevent a situation of majority rule turning into majority tyranny. As for one side getting 60% of the popular vote and still losing, isn't that also possible under the "winner take all in each state" system?
Quote: RonCSo what is fair?
I do enjoy how people just toss out the lie that Republicans are trying to prevent people from voting. It is an easy thing to say, but it is a pile of crap. A couple people said stupid things--and Democrats have said PLENTY of stupid things...but that doesn't make some huge conspiracy to take away anyone's right to vote legally!
I think the problem is, it's quite possible that some Republicans really are trying to prevent people from voting - not necessarily because they would vote Democrat, but because of the color of their skin. The fact that trying to get voting ID is harder for poorer people, and there is a correlation between "being poor" and "being black" as well as "being black" and "voting Democrat", just makes it more convenient.
As for "what is fair", the question is, "Fair in what way?" Should we do away with the Electoral College, now that we are capable of getting nationwide popular vote counts in seconds instead of weeks? Remember, the Constitution predates the telegraph, so the fastest way of getting information around was by horse and rider. That is certainly the "most democratic" method.
If they don't want winner take all, dividing the electoral votes in proportion to the state's popular vote would be free from this form of corruption.
Quote: ThatDonGuyI think the problem is, it's quite possible that some Republicans really are trying to prevent people from voting - not necessarily because they would vote Democrat, but because of the color of their skin. The fact that trying to get voting ID is harder for poorer people, and there is a correlation between "being poor" and "being black" as well as "being black" and "voting Democrat", just makes it more convenient.
So you really think that "some Republicans" want to disqualify poor blacks from voting? Sure, some Democrats want Socialism, too. There are idiots on the outskirts of either party but is ridiculous to tie them to the party as a whole as everyone tries to do on this voting issue. Do I really think Democrats, as a whole, want to redistribute everything? Do you really think Republicans, as a whole, would want be the party that tried to keep blacks from voting?
Quote: kewlj
I am not the least bit surprised by this. The republicans looking at the unfavorable changing demographics are trying to change the election process and prevent people from voting.
The only ones they are trying to prevent from voting are those not eligible to vote. How can that be a bad thing?
As to the Electoral College, the intent is that the rights of the minority in less populated areas need to be protected as the founders intended. People should not lose their rights based on where they live!
Quote: ThatDonGuyMeanwhile, a number of states are trying to change it so that all of their electoral votes go to whoever wins the national popular vote, once states with at least 270 electoral votes agree to it.
You can also look at it the other way; why should Obama get all 23 electoral votes in a state where he didn't come anywhere near getting 100% of the vote?
Little-known fact: nowhere in the Constitution or laws of the USA does it say that popular vote needs to have anything to do with deciding who the electors from each state are, or how they vote. (Senators and Representatives, on the other hand, must be elected by direct vote of the people.)
Splitting the electoral college by percentage of votes won makes a lot of sense. Doing it by district, less so. The former makes every vote in a state worth the same, the latter reduces the electoral college 'problem' downwards to an even small sub unit where a few key districts would decide the election, and this get the majority of the attention. Whenever one person's vote is worth more than another in the election, it harms elective democracy.
Quote: RonCQuote: ThatDonGuyI think the problem is, it's quite possible that some Republicans really are trying to prevent people from voting - not necessarily because they would vote Democrat, but because of the color of their skin. The fact that trying to get voting ID is harder for poorer people, and there is a correlation between "being poor" and "being black" as well as "being black" and "voting Democrat", just makes it more convenient.
So you really think that "some Republicans" want to disqualify poor blacks from voting? Sure, some Democrats want Socialism, too. There are idiots on the outskirts of either party but is ridiculous to tie them to the party as a whole as everyone tries to do on this voting issue. Do I really think Democrats, as a whole, want to redistribute everything? Do you really think Republicans, as a whole, would want be the party that tried to keep blacks from voting?
How does "some Republicans" wanting to do something tie it to "the party as a whole"? The use of the word "some" means that it's not the party as a whole.
Then again, supporting voter IDs is in the Republican Party Platform, isn't it? (Then again again, not every Republican supports the platform.)
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: RonCQuote: ThatDonGuyI think the problem is, it's quite possible that some Republicans really are trying to prevent people from voting - not necessarily because they would vote Democrat, but because of the color of their skin. The fact that trying to get voting ID is harder for poorer people, and there is a correlation between "being poor" and "being black" as well as "being black" and "voting Democrat", just makes it more convenient.
So you really think that "some Republicans" want to disqualify poor blacks from voting? Sure, some Democrats want Socialism, too. There are idiots on the outskirts of either party but is ridiculous to tie them to the party as a whole as everyone tries to do on this voting issue. Do I really think Democrats, as a whole, want to redistribute everything? Do you really think Republicans, as a whole, would want be the party that tried to keep blacks from voting?
How does "some Republicans" wanting to do something tie it to "the party as a whole"? The use of the word "some" means that it's not the party as a whole.
Then again, supporting voter IDs is in the Republican Party Platform, isn't it? (Then again again, not every Republican supports the platform.)
I quarrel with the way some Liberals/Democrats use words like "some Republicans" wanting to stop poor black voters from voting as way of trying to make that group seem larger. It is really very few Republicans that want to deny voters their vote...just as it is very few Democrats who want Socialism. It isn't the wrong word; it just makes the group seems larger than it is...
Republicans do want voter ID...of screw it...somebody will say I am a puppet for saying that we want it to protect the legal votes...but that is why many Republicans favor it...
Quote: thecesspitSplitting the electoral college by percentage of votes won makes a lot of sense. Doing it by district, less so. The former makes every vote in a state worth the same, the latter reduces the electoral college 'problem' downwards to an even small sub unit where a few key districts would decide the election, and this get the majority of the attention. Whenever one person's vote is worth more than another in the election, it harms elective democracy.
Well parsed. +1.
A change representing each state dividing their electoral votes by percent would need to include all states though. You can't have some states doing it one way and some the other (although we do currently have 2 states that do it differently). It needs to be uniform in my opinion.
Dividing EACH state by percentage won would actually make the whole election system more inclusive. This would mean there would be democrat votes to be gotten in a place like Texas, and republican votes to be had in a place like California. This means candidates would travel to all of these states instead of the way it currently works where only voters in a handful of states have access to the candidate and really those voters in those handful of states decide the election. Currently voters in California, and Texas don't REALLY have a say.
Quote: RSI'm not understanding how this change would be a bad thing. ???
As long as it was by congressional district it would be good, just by population of state would ignore many places. Take PA for example. As it is, Philly pretty much determines the state, with Pittsburgh a swing-area. So whoever runs for POTUS could promise Philly all kinds of goodies and a few to Pittsburgh while sending an "up yours card" to Erie, Altoona, Johnstown, Greensburg, and a host of others and sew up most of the Electors. When you spread it out by district you give broad attention, which is the reason for the EC in the first place, to make sure smaller areas did not have their rights ignored.
Senators to the state winner then district by district would be the most fair way to do it.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only ones they are trying to prevent from voting are those not eligible to vote. How can that be a bad thing?
This is a perfect issue that should have a solution with proper leadership in Congress: it's absolutely a fact that the current system allows for people who shouldn't be able to vote to vote although the numbers can be debated. In close elections, such as what happened with Franken years back, this can matter. Regardless of the number, the fact that it can happen calls into question the validity of the system for some people- and that's a bad thing. On the other side of the issue, there are also legitimate concerns, too, as people who do have the right to vote should be able to vote. When I vote, I'm asked for an ID: not sure what would happen if I didn't supply one. They then look up my name in a book and I sign and my signature is compared to what's on file. Why a system can't be developed where if a minimum amount of information is not provided, that the ballot becomes provisional, that everyone can agree to, I feel is a lack of leadership.
Quote: TheBigPaybakOn the other side of the issue, there are also legitimate concerns, too, as people who do have the right to vote should be able to vote. When I vote, I'm asked for an ID: not sure what would happen if I didn't supply one. They then look up my name in a book and I sign and my signature is compared to what's on file. Why a system can't be developed where if a minimum amount of information is not provided, that the ballot becomes provisional, that everyone can agree to, I feel is a lack of leadership.
The first thing IMHO we need to do is drop the "provisional ballot" and all these other worries and say, "The requirement is you have one of the following forms of ID, if you do not have them with you, go home and get them." If people do not want to comply, well they do not get to vote!
"I didn't comply with the requirements so he said I could not vote!" Uh, sorry, the requirements were clear. Register 30 days prior, have a valid ID, show up on Election DAY, and then you can vote. This is not the hardest thing in the world to do.
I am sorry, but voting is not some kind of special right that you get no matter what your refusal to comply with simple requirements. And presenting the ID you already have is not a hard requirement.
After the last election I am going to modify my reasoning here. There are 2 main reasons liberals are against ID requirements:
1. Election Fraud, which I will not discuss again right now as it has already been proven
2. To race-bait. Democrats keep telling minorities, "vote for us or Jones will come back and take the farm away!" And so many buy it.
Quote: AZDuffmanAfter the last election I am going to modify my reasoning here. There are 2 main reasons liberals are against ID requirements:
1. Election Fraud, which I will not discuss again right now as it has already been proven
2. To race-bait. Democrats keep telling minorities, "vote for us or Jones will come back and take the farm away!" And so many buy it.
Still trying to sell that B.S., eh?
Quote: ams288Still trying to sell that B.S., eh?
Not Barbara Streisand as you say. It is the truth. Since everyone has or can easily get ID then there has to be some other reason for Democrats to be so against something that most of the population is in favor of. Fraud has already been proven here with various links, one to a woman who voted for Obama what, six times was it?
As to the race baiting, just look at the arguments against ID and it is all about trying to convince people that showing the ID you already have is somehow going back to the days when the Democrat Party had literacy tests and other voter suppression in the south. Why a party would remind voters that years ago they practiced voter suppression is beyond me.
Quote: kewljAs I predicted in one of the Election threads, The republicans are floating the idea of changing the electoral process in several states to benefit themselves. To do this they would need to control the governorship and both chambers in any given state of which they currently control many. If implemented instead of a winner take all for each state, the winner would take 1 for each congressional district that they won.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
In those states which Republicans could implement this change (such as Texas, Louisiana ), all the electoral votes already went 100% to Republican (i.e. Romney in 2012).
Now they want to change the rule so that some of the votes go to Democrats? Why the Republicans want to do such a suicidal thing?
Quote: pokerfaceThis doesn't make any sense at all.
In those states which Republicans could implement this change (such as Texas, Louisiana ), all the electoral votes already went 100% to Republican (i.e. Romney in 2012).
Now they want to change the rule so that some of the votes go to Democrats? Why the Republicans want to do such a suicidal thing?
This brings up a good point.
Currently, states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are totally controlled by Republicans.
It will be interesting to see if these swing states push for this shady rule change, but deep red states like Texas and Georgia do not.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to the race baiting, just look at the arguments against ID and it is all about trying to convince people that showing the ID you already have is somehow going back to the days when the Democrat Party had literacy tests and other voter suppression in the south. Why a party would remind voters that years ago they practiced voter suppression is beyond me.
Yes, that Democratic party is the same as the one today. *eyeroll*
This is a lazy, foolish point to make. You should know better.
Quote: pokerfaceThis doesn't make any sense at all.
In those states which Republicans could implement this change (such as Texas, Louisiana ), all the electoral votes already went 100% to Republican (i.e. Romney in 2012).
Now they want to change the rule so that some of the votes go to Democrats? Why the Republicans want to do such a suicidal thing?
Funny you should mention that. It is interesting that they are currently talking about 3 states Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. They have absolutely no interest in doing so in any of the many republican leaning states that they currently control all three parts of state government. Lol.
Quote: ams288Yes, that Democratic party is the same as the one today. *eyeroll*
This is a lazy, foolish point to make. You should know better.
So, you are saying that there was a Democrat Party that ended, like the Whigs, and a "new" one formed? Are you saying that LBJ was in a different Democrat Party than the one we have today?
Funny how it is a "different" Democrat Party yet the states are "the same" even though nobody from their per-1960s days and Eric Holder and others want them to get permission from Washington to what amounts to forever to change their own voting laws despite the US Constitution giving them the right to do so.
I "know better." That is why I wrote what I wrote.
Quote: kewljFunny you should mention that. It is interesting that they are currently talking about 3 states Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. They have absolutely no interest in doing so in any of the many republican leaning states that they currently control all three parts of state government. Lol.
Republicans can only win elections when only a third of the country shows up to vote like they did last week.
They know they're screwed in the long run. And especially screwed in Presidential election years.
They will try any way possible to cheat and steal elections.
Voter suppression. Electoral college manipulation. Nothing is off limits.
They are scumbags.
And they are especially good at using their media arm (FOX, Drudge, etc.) to convince their brainwashed base that these "reforms" are necessary.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, you are saying that there was a Democrat Party that ended, like the Whigs, and a "new" one formed? Are you saying that LBJ was in a different Democrat Party than the one we have today?
Funny how it is a "different" Democrat Party yet the states are "the same" even though nobody from their per-1960s days and Eric Holder and others want them to get permission from Washington to what amounts to forever to change their own voting laws despite the US Constitution giving them the right to do so.
I "know better." That is why I wrote what I wrote.
I am saying that political parties evolve over time. Do you really think Abe Lincoln would identify with the Republicans of today? Gimme a break.
Heck, the far-right teabagging Republican party of today can't even identify with the Republican party from 10 years ago.
So to get back to the original point - yes it WAS a different democratic party back in the day. If I have my history right, wasn't it LBJ who helped the party get rid of the racist southern democrats?
So either you are being purposefully ignorant and overly literal, or you could use a history lesson to two.
Quote: ams288I am saying that political parties evolve over time. Do you really think Abe Lincoln would identify with the Republicans of today? Gimme a break.
Heck, the far-right teabagging Republican party of today can't even identify with the Republican party from 10 years ago.
Abe would identify I believe. OTOH, JFK could not run as a Democrat today the party has moved so far left.
Quote:So to get back to the original point - yes it WAS a different democratic party back in the day. If I have my history right, wasn't it LBJ who helped the party get rid of the racist southern democrats?
Please list some of the "racist southern democrats" that left the party. I do not believe many if any switched parties or otherwise "left" in congress. As for LBJ, he was quite the racist, voting against every civil rights act in his 20 years in congress.
Quote:So either you are being purposefully ignorant and overly literal, or you could use a history lesson to two.
Neither, I am pointing out some history that liberals prefer to ignore/change.
Quote: AZDuffmanPlease list some of the "racist southern democrats" that left the party. I do not believe many if any switched parties or otherwise "left" in congress.
Strom Thurmond.
Started as a democrat. Ended up a Republican (imagine that!).
Quote: ams288Strom Thurmond.
Started as a democrat. Ended up a Republican (imagine that!).
So after LBJ did this ONE switch? That was "driving them out?" And he left for the party that voted for the Civil Rights Act in a greater proportion than the one he left? Weird.
However, KKK leader Robert Byrd remained a Democrat Senator until the day he died (imagine that!)
Quote: AZDuffmanSo after LBJ did this ONE switch? That was "driving them out?"
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not believe many if any switched parties
Strom Thurmond was one.
There were more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats
My original point stands: Parties evolve over time. It is NOT the same party that it used to be.
The end.
Quote: ams288Strom Thurmond was one.
There were more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats
My original point stands: Parties evolve over time. It is NOT the same party that it used to be.
The end.
From your own link:
"The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party."
Before suggesting I take a history lesson, please check into what you are suggesting as history.
Again, history shows the Democrat Party to be the party of southern segregation and try as you might, you cannot run away from that nor suggest it was the GOP. As such, if anyone tries to raise this "GOP Voter Suppression" nonsense expect a reply showing that history shows the opposite, as it does.
Quote: AZDuffmanFrom your own link:
"The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party."
Before suggesting I take a history lesson, please check into what you are suggesting as history.
Again, history shows the Democrat Party to be the party of southern segregation and try as you might, you cannot run away from that nor suggest it was the GOP. As such, if anyone tries to raise this "GOP Voter Suppression" nonsense expect a reply showing that history shows the opposite, as it does.
My point was, and still is, that political parties evolve over time. That Democratic party is not the Democratic party of today. Are you trying to say that there are still elected Southern Democrats who support segregation today? Who?
I did not run away from that history or suggest that it was the GOP. Do not put words in my mouth. It was the Democrats. But the party has changed. They're all dead now.
However, it IS the GOP who is pushing voter suppression today.
Quote: ams288
However, it IS the GOP who is pushing voter suppression today.
Please cite some examples. Because every "example" I hear used involves common-sense security of elections (eg: producing the ID everyone already has, confining voting to one day so as not to leave ballots unsecured, etc.) that liberals call "suppression."
Quote: AZDuffmanPlease cite some examples. Because every "example" I hear used involves common-sense security of elections (eg: producing the ID everyone already has, confining voting to one day so as not to leave ballots unsecured, etc.) that liberals call "suppression."
We've already been down that road.
You can pretend all day long that voter ID laws are necessary and that there is rampant voter fraud going on out there, but everyone knows that isn't true. Whether they are able to admit it to themselves or not is another issue...
The facts, even in just one closely contested state, belie the vitriolic invective:Quote: ams288Republicans can only win elections when only a third of the country shows up to vote like they did last week. They know they're screwed in the long run. And especially screwed in Presidential election years. They will try any way possible to cheat and steal elections. Voter suppression. Electoral college manipulation. Nothing is off limits. They are scumbags. And they are especially good at using their media arm (FOX, Drudge, etc.) to convince their brainwashed base that these "reforms" are necessary.
Apr 2, 2014
Raleigh, N.C. – House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) issued a joint statement Wednesday in response to more alarming evidence of voter error and fraud discovered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Initial findings from the Board presented to the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee today show:
765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.
These findings only take into account data from the 28 states who participated in the 2014 Interstate Crosscheck, leaving out potential voter error and fraud in the 22 states that do not participate in the consortium.
Additionally, during an audit of death records from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Board discovered:
50,000 new death records that had not previously been provided to the State Board of Elections.
13,416 deceased voters on the voter rolls in October 2013.
81 deceased voters that had voter activity after they died. Interstate Crosscheck I and Interstate Crosscheck II
Quote: AZDuffmanSo after LBJ did this ONE switch? That was "driving them out?" And he left for the party that voted for the Civil Rights Act in a greater proportion than the one he left? Weird.
However, KKK leader Robert Byrd remained a Democrat Senator until the day he died (imagine that!)
I hate people who say this because it shows they are either disengious or ignorant. The Civil Rights Act was not a Republican vs Democrat issue it was a South vs North issue and because the Democrats at the time controlled a larger portion of the South, which for some magic reason called the "Southern Strategy" switched after this, they voted against the voters right act in larger number. When however you break up the vote by North and South you will see Norther Democrats voted in larger proportion for it then Norther Republican and similarly Southern Democrats voted for in larger proportion then Southern Republicans.
It is a classic example of Simpsons paradox http://www.math.usu.edu/adele/s1040/Simpsons_paradox.pdf . So it is far more fair to say Southerners were more racist then Northerners and what do you know the GOP controls the South now.
Quote: kewljI am not the least bit surprised by this. The republicans looking at the unfavorable changing demographics are trying to change the election process and prevent people from voting.
I am not a conservative but God do I hate how liberals accuse the right of being evil. Every time, without fail, they will make some ridiculous accusation like this that is not only off topic but also completely unsubstantiated. This is a sign of a poor debater.
It speaks volumes that the right generally believes the left to be well intentioned but misguided. A republican might say something like, "Yes I want to help poor people but welfare is not the way to do it. Writing people checks for being poor crushes the soul, removes the drive to succeed, breaks up families, and leads to broken communities. If you really want to help poor people you should abolish welfare." A person who makes a comment like this thinks that expanding welfare comes from good intentions but has negative unintended consequences and thus ought to be opposed. The liberal hears a comment like this and thinks "What a load of crap! How can giving a poor person money to put food on his table be bad? This rich A-hole is just too greedy to share." They cannot conceive that well intentioned people may have different opinions. This is why everyone who opposes state sanctioned gay marriage (even gay people!) MUST be a bigot, etc.
I will not argue with the larger point, but those last 4 words are just classic liberal crap.
Quote: ams288I am saying that political parties evolve over time. Do you really think Abe Lincoln would identify with the Republicans of today? Gimme a break.
Course they do, there's been at least five 'party systems' in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System
Quote: AZDuffmanAs long as it was by congressional district it would be good, just by population of state would ignore many places. Take PA for example. As it is, Philly pretty much determines the state, with Pittsburgh a swing-area. So whoever runs for POTUS could promise Philly all kinds of goodies and a few to Pittsburgh while sending an "up yours card" to Erie, Altoona, Johnstown, Greensburg, and a host of others and sew up most of the Electors. When you spread it out by district you give broad attention, which is the reason for the EC in the first place, to make sure smaller areas did not have their rights ignored.
Senators to the state winner then district by district would be the most fair way to do it.
Thgey can do that with the current system. A system where the EC was split by total vote in the state would mean the republican in the boonies vote would count just as much the democratic voter in Pittsburgh. Under the current system, one only needs to capture 51% of the vote to get 100% of the EC in the state.
Doing it by congressional district does not solve the problem you mention. It exacerbates it to the situation that you had in the last presidential election... get out the vote in the 'swing' districts, and ignore the partisan areas entirely. The Democrats were very good at that in the last election on a state wide level, getting votes out in very targetted, narrow areas.
A form of proportional representation (like EC divided by the statewide vote) makes voting more equitable and protects that very vote you are worried about in the smaller areas.
As for Voter ID... I checked. In Canada (thats liberal, socialist Canada) Voter ID is required to prove your name against the register of voters.
I have no idea why it wouldn't be the same in every other democracy in the world...
And no other country has tens of millions of ineligible people who can so easily register and vote.Quote: thecesspitAs for Voter ID... I checked. In Canada (thats liberal, socialist Canada) Voter ID is required to prove your name against the register of voters. I have no idea why it wouldn't be the same in every other democracy in the world...
Quote: Twirdman
It is a classic example of Simpsons paradox http://www.math.usu.edu/adele/s1040/Simpsons_paradox.pdf . So it is far more fair to say Southerners were more racist then Northerners and what do you know the GOP controls the South now.
The weather is nicer in the south too, maybe conservatives just like nicer weather?
Doesn't explain California.Quote: AZDuffmanThe weather is nicer in the south too, maybe conservatives just like nicer weather?
Quote: SanchoPanzaAnd no other country has tens of millions of ineligible people who can so easily register and vote.
(shrug) I just guess I don't get why some people claim voter suppression. Clearly it's a case of voter, and citizen -education-.
Quote: ams288Republicans can only win elections when only a third of the country shows up to vote like they did last week.
They know they're screwed in the long run. And especially screwed in Presidential election years.
They will try any way possible to cheat and steal elections.
Voter suppression. Electoral college manipulation. Nothing is off limits.
They are scumbags.
And they are especially good at using their media arm (FOX, Drudge, etc.) to convince their brainwashed base that these "reforms" are necessary.
Just so I get this clear.... I am for splitting electoral votes. In my state, New York, the area that I live in, Western New York, likely will support a non-Hilary candidate. My vote gets drowned out by downstate interests. I would like my elector to represent the majority interests in my area. I am for having voters present valid identification. So because of these ideas you are calling me a scumbag?
Quote: bigfoot66Quote: kewljI am not the least bit surprised by this. The republicans looking at the unfavorable changing demographics are trying to change the election process and prevent people from voting.
I am not a conservative but God do I hate how liberals accuse the right of being evil. Every time, without fail, they will make some ridiculous accusation like this that is not only off topic but also completely unsubstantiated. This is a sign of a poor debater.
It speaks volumes that the right generally believes the left to be well intentioned but misguided. A republican might say something like, "Yes I want to help poor people but welfare is not the way to do it. Writing people checks for being poor crushes the soul, removes the drive to succeed, breaks up families, and leads to broken communities. If you really want to help poor people you should abolish welfare." A person who makes a comment like this thinks that expanding welfare comes from good intentions but has negative unintended consequences and thus ought to be opposed. The liberal hears a comment like this and thinks "What a load of crap! How can giving a poor person money to put food on his table be bad? This rich A-hole is just too greedy to share." They cannot conceive that well intentioned people may have different opinions. This is why everyone who opposes state sanctioned gay marriage (even gay people!) MUST be a bigot, etc.
I will not argue with the larger point, but those last 4 words are just classic liberal crap.
x1000
Quote: rudeboyoiNo government can be fair. Let's take democracy here as an example and also assume every politician is uncorruptable and stands for the people that voted for him.. About 40% of the population votes. Of that 40% about half go one way and half go the other way. So about 20% of the population forces their views onto the other 80% of the population. Is that fair?
Those who don't vote don't get a say. You want your voice heard? Vote. Sounds fair to me. I hear too much these days (at least a year or two ago), "President sucks, this n that suck, everything sucks." I ask if they voted, they say no. Well there you go.
