kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
November 10th, 2014 at 2:03:59 PM permalink
As 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.

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.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 122
  • Posts: 6716
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
November 10th, 2014 at 2:12:21 PM permalink
Meanwhile, 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.)
Deucekies
Deucekies
  • Threads: 58
  • Posts: 1486
Joined: Jan 20, 2014
November 10th, 2014 at 2:28:11 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.)


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.
Casinos are not your friends, they want your money. But so does Disneyland. And there is no chance in hell that you will go to Disneyland and come back with more money than you went with. - AxelWolf and Mickeycrimm
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
November 10th, 2014 at 2:29:59 PM permalink
So what is fair?

"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)
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
November 10th, 2014 at 2:37:00 PM permalink
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?
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 122
  • Posts: 6716
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
November 10th, 2014 at 2:54:14 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

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?


"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: RonC

So 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.
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
November 10th, 2014 at 2:55:01 PM permalink
Winner take all was supposed to protect states rights. Congressional districts are gerrymandered by whoever is in charge at the time, and tying electoral votes to the results of individual districts is a sign of corruption.

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.
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
November 10th, 2014 at 3:01:20 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.



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?
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
November 10th, 2014 at 3:05:04 PM permalink
First this doesn't represent the state well and diverts attention to other states. If there were doomsday clocks for the US, inching to midnight, with vigilante assassins.
I am a robot.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 10th, 2014 at 4:08:40 PM permalink
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!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 10th, 2014 at 4:32:26 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Meanwhile, 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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 122
  • Posts: 6716
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
November 10th, 2014 at 4:51:24 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.



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.)
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
November 10th, 2014 at 4:59:17 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: RonC

Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.



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...
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 14268
Joined: May 21, 2013
November 10th, 2014 at 10:46:08 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

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.



Well parsed. +1.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
November 10th, 2014 at 11:05:58 PM permalink
Dividing each states electoral votes by percentage won would be fine. Even though The dems currently benefit from the current system, I have felt the electoral college outdated for a while. I am not opposed to change as long as it is fair and hopefully would still represent the majority popular vote. Dividing by congressional district does not do this. That is just one side trying to tilt things and pretty dramatically in their favor.

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.
Keyser
Keyser
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2112
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
November 10th, 2014 at 11:35:07 PM permalink
The new change seems as though it would be fairer and would help prevent the dems from disenfranchising voters.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 1:28:27 AM permalink
If the re+++ded want to forfeit their opportunity to become a battleground state, then let them become irrelevant. Red states become purple and blue states stay blue.
I am a robot.
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
November 11th, 2014 at 4:03:18 AM permalink
I'm not understanding how this change would be a bad thing. ???
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 4:14:22 AM permalink
Quote: RS

I'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.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
TheBigPaybak
TheBigPaybak
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 437
Joined: May 14, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 4:26:21 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The 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.
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 5:14:04 AM permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak

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.




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.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 5:16:58 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



Still trying to sell that B.S., eh?
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 5:42:04 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

Still 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.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
pokerface
pokerface
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 514
Joined: May 9, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 5:59:19 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

As 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?
winning streaks come and go, losing streak never ends.
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 6:07:20 AM permalink
Quote: pokerface

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?



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.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 6:10:24 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



Yes, that Democratic party is the same as the one today. *eyeroll*

This is a lazy, foolish point to make. You should know better.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
kewlj
kewlj
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 6:19:07 AM permalink
Quote: pokerface

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?



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.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 6:25:03 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

Yes, 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.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 6:26:02 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

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.



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.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 6:36:26 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



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.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 6:54:33 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.



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.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 6:59:23 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



Strom Thurmond.

Started as a democrat. Ended up a Republican (imagine that!).
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 7:06:00 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

Strom 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!)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 7:11:06 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

So after LBJ did this ONE switch? That was "driving them out?"



Quote: AZDuffman

I 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.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 7:17:59 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.



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.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 7:25:39 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



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.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 7:39:52 AM permalink
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."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6750
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
November 11th, 2014 at 8:03:03 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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."



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...
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 8:57:40 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.

The facts, even in just one closely contested state, belie the vitriolic invective:

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
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
November 11th, 2014 at 9:19:51 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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!)



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.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 9:23:21 AM permalink
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.



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.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 9:36:28 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.



Course they do, there's been at least five 'party systems' in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 9:43:31 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

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.



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...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 10:30:43 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

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.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14453
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 11th, 2014 at 11:03:25 AM permalink
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?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
Joined: May 10, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 11:15:56 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The weather is nicer in the south too, maybe conservatives just like nicer weather?

Doesn't explain California.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 3:47:07 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

And 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-.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 4:01:05 PM permalink
No 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?
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 123
  • Posts: 11496
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
November 11th, 2014 at 4:12:36 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.



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?
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
November 11th, 2014 at 4:15:03 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

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.



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: rudeboyoi

No 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.
  • Jump to: