Republicans attempt to change electoral collage

[gamerk316]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-virginia-other-states-seeking-electoral-college-changes/2013/01/24/430096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html?hpid=z1

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.

 

[wanamingo]

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.

 

[johnsonma]

Its either that or count latino's as 1/3 a vote.

 

[wanamingo]

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.

 

[johnsonma]

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.

 

[gamerk316]

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.

 

[wanamingo]

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.

 

[wanamingo]

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!

 

[johnsonma]

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.

 

[gamerk316]

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!"

 

[gamerk316]

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

 

[wanamingo]

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-guidelines

 

[gamerk316]

Straight from the US Constitution:

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.

 

[gamerk316]

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.

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.

 

[MU_Engineer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-virginia-other-states-seeking-electoral-college-changes/2013/01/24/430096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html?hpid=z1

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.

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.

 

[musical marv]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-in-virginia-other-states-seeking-electoral-college-changes/2013/01/24/430096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html?hpid=z1

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.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[dogman_1234]

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.

 

[MU_Engineer]

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.

 

[dogman_1234]

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!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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.

 

[musical marv]

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?

 

[wanamingo]

Isnt this why we have local and state government?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

@ 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-burke-speech-on-conciliation.html