Republicans attempt to change electoral collage

[wanamingo]

Arent we talking about two different things?

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

Also Romney didnt want to president.....

And There is really no difference between the two.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But that crosses with what written above, taxation and freedom

 

[johnsonma]

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

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

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

Letting them rewrite the rules to retain power when they stand only for white religious groups would be a crime on our republic.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[johnsonma]

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

New age thinking is not hippie talk from the 60's JDJ. I know that you probably view it the same but I assure you it is not.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[gamerk316]

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

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16737280-first-thoughts-immigration-takes-center-stage?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=3

Translation: Anyone who has to get elected via statewide ballot opposes this measure. So this is basically dead in Virginia now.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I agree gamer, by any side.
Its a slippery slope, as Ive pointed out other such things elsewheres.

 

[gamerk316]

I am also tired of congress not doing anything

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

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

How can I say that? Because its what you voted for. This party paralysis? You voted for that. The deficit? You voted for that too. And so on and so forth. This is what you want.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[gamerk316]

Nate Silvers analysis (beware NYT Paywall):

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/electoral-college-changes-would-pose-danger-for-democrats/?gwh=4C10CD2EB21BB498F69A552EE4DC7155#more-38369

Which kinda shows why the GOP wants to do this, no?

 

[gamerk316]

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

Fun fact: Federal Spending Dropped 2% in 2010.

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

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

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[gamerk316]

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

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

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

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

Recessions are ALWAYS cheaper by increasing spending and making them go away quicker, as the short term loss due to increased spending is offset by the more stable revenue stream.

 

[gamerk316]

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

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

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

 

[gamerk316]

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

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

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

 

[chunkymonster]

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

Interesting article...let me share some noteworthy quotes though...

In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district

Hmm, seems more like a true democracy to me, after all if a democracy is defined as, "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." then it stands to reason that having the electoral votes apportioned by Congressional level is putting the power into the People's hands to ensure the politicians they freely elected are accurately representing them in Congress. Personally, I am not in favor of "winner takes all" apportionment, I'd much prefer it be broken down to the Congressional level, hence more closely to the People actually doing the voting, and therefore more reflective of the democratic process.

(Reince Priebus) said Thursday: “For these states, it would make them more competitive, but it’s not our call to tell them how to apportion their votes.”

Are Democrats afraid of more competition? Are Democrats afraid of the electoral apportionment being more reflective of the People who actually do the voting? It seems to me that the true issue here is an ignorance of population shift between 2000 and 2010, the State level redistricting process, and how our democracy works and not so much a Republican conspiracy to steal elections. It seems to me the issue here is the hypocrisy of progressives and Democrats of being all for "one voice one vote" when it goes in their favor and not so much the Republicans wanting to apportion the electoral votes so it more closely aligns to how the People vote within their community.It seems to me that if the Democrats are really for "one voice one vote" they would support any action that puts the power of the vote back to the People.

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

Sounds like a Congressman who actually cares that ALL the votes of ALL the People in his District are fairly counted and accounted for. Are Democrats against ensuring that the votes of one person carries the same weight as the next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAHAHA! Oh man, that's just funny. Please do not be selectively ignorant. The fact that it was Democrats who opposed standardized Federal oversight and screamed bloody murder when Republicans proposed Voter ID laws in the November 2012 election. Ironically, Democrats had no problem with allowing the United Nations to oversee the 2012 elections and had no problems overseeing the voting process in Democrat controlled areas, but no way in Hades did they want Republicans overseeing the vote in a Republican District!

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

 

[gamerk316]

Interesting article...let me share some noteworthy quotes though...

In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district

Hmm, seems more like a true democracy to me, after all if a democracy is defined as, "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." then it stands to reason that having the electoral votes apportioned by Congressional level is putting the power into the People's hands to ensure the politicians they freely elected are accurately representing them in Congress.[/quote]

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

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

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

Probably because it doesn't favor your supported Candidates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your rant; its clear you'd rather destroy Democracy and put a one-party dictatorship in place.

 

[gamerk316]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

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

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

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

 

[MU_Engineer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[riser]

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

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

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

 

[johnsonma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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