Gerrymander the Electoral College?

[Papageorgio]

When it looks like one party is trying to rig a vote and subvert the will of democracy by applying it selectively, it looks really, really bad for that party.

When Republicans start talking about splitting the electoral college in their own states, then the GOP will have credibility on this issue. But a concerted effort to split the electoral college in manner that benefits themselves alone looks like a cynical power grab by a party that no longer knows how to win elections without gerrymandering the results. Any other argument about states' rights, blah, blah, blah, is just utter bullshit.

I figured Dems don't give a fuck about states rights.

I'm a Republican.

When Republicans start talking about splitting the electoral college in Texas or Georgia, then you can come back to us with pious self-righteous indignation. Otherwise, it's just a cynical naked grab for power that has nothing to do with "states' rights."

I don't agree with you. Not pious or self-righteous, not even a Republican. It is a states rights issue and all states are allowed to do as they please with their votes.

I believe in the laws, if the Dems wanted to do it, it would be fine, they have tried it and done it before. The state is the say of their votes. BTW, come screaming if it is actually passed, because not even a majority of Republicans in Virginia think this is good for their state.

 

[Truthmatters]

then they should put it to a state vote for all to deside

 

[deaddogseye]

It seems that Republicans are now considering a new idea to try to win the WH next time.

They want to divide up the electoral college votes along gerrymandered House election districts. Considering that the House Dems got over 1,000,000 more votes than House Republicans, yet the GOP retained control of the House, I don't think this is a good idea.

They worked out the math for it on this last election, and if the Red State plan (those are the people who thought it up) were applied, Obama still would have won the popular vote by over a million votes, but he would have lost the electoral college and Mittens would have won.

Fortunately, since this idea has made it into the public, many Reps who were for this idea are now against it (Rove among them), because they know it would be a disaster for them publicly. However, MI is still considering going with this.

Anyone else still think that the GOP plays fair with elections?

It's simple; if Republicans push this agenda, then it's time for Dems to make a massive push to abolish the EC. If Republicans really want a bloodbath, then they will go down this road.

just one problem with that for the democrats -- abolishing the elctoral college requires a constitutional amendment which will NEVER pass because it will require numerpus states to agree that their influence in presidential elections should be diminished. lots of states will not support it (it requires 3/4 of the states to pass) including some blue ones. so that is a very very hollow threat from the left. im guessing it couldnt get half the states to approve it --

in contrast the change to how elctoral votes are allocated is a matter of state law decide by the state legislative process. so the dem threat to abolish the EC really is totally empty and the people waiving that threat really arent taken seriously. But hey if they want to go runnig around trying to amend the constituion -- knock yourselves out

And of course two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- now allocate their EC votes this way so there is nothing new about it.

 

[deaddogseye]

When it looks like one party is trying to rig a vote and subvert the will of democracy by applying it selectively, it looks really, really bad for that party.

When Republicans start talking about splitting the electoral college in their own states, then the GOP will have credibility on this issue. But a concerted effort to split the electoral college in manner that benefits themselves alone looks like a cynical power grab by a party that no longer knows how to win elections without gerrymandering the results. Any other argument about states' rights, blah, blah, blah, is just utter bullshit.

I figured Dems don't give a fuck about states rights.

I'm a Republican.

When Republicans start talking about splitting the electoral college in Texas or Georgia, then you can come back to us with pious self-righteous indignation. Otherwise, it's just a cynical naked grab for power that has nothing to do with "states' rights."

your point does seem to suggest you dont really appreciate the meaning of states rights. central to the idea is that each state is free to do what it wants on a question like this. If Texas wants to do it, it can and presumably will. if the texas or georgia legislatures feel it is not in their interests to do so, why should they? there is not a Republican monolith controlling the legistaures of these states. a bunch of them may act independently to push this through and if they do -- so be it.

but this issue really shows that the democrats arent as in control politically of the country as the MSM tries to portray -- they are getting killed at the state level and this is a consequence of that. and also why they have to push for so much centralized power in washington

 

[JoeB131]

[

I don't agree with you. Not pious or self-righteous, not even a Republican. It is a states rights issue and all states are allowed to do as they please with their votes.

I believe in the laws, if the Dems wanted to do it, it would be fine, they have tried it and done it before. The state is the say of their votes. BTW, come screaming if it is actually passed, because not even a majority of Republicans in Virginia think this is good for their state.

This is simply not true. Any such reading of state's rights is nullified by the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Also, someone should have explained to you at a young age that a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Anyone else notice that not only does this Red State idea favor the GOP quite nicely, but that they are the only ones supporting it?

I guess when you lose the last election, if you're a Republican, you start figuring out how to steal the next one.

 

[Papageorgio]

[

I don't agree with you. Not pious or self-righteous, not even a Republican. It is a states rights issue and all states are allowed to do as they please with their votes.

I believe in the laws, if the Dems wanted to do it, it would be fine, they have tried it and done it before. The state is the say of their votes. BTW, come screaming if it is actually passed, because not even a majority of Republicans in Virginia think this is good for their state.

This is simply not true. Any such reading of state's rights is nullified by the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Also, someone should have explained to you at a young age that a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind.

Sorry, your personal insult aside, the 14th and 15th amendments don't apply in this, otherwise two states would be in violation of the constitution, again where is the violation of the constitution? There is no challenge to those states because they are with in the confines of the current law.

 

[Care4all]

why not just go with the popular vote? why would you want to rig the election with gerrymandered districts deciding???????

 

[Papageorgio]

why not just go with the popular vote? why would you want to rig the election with gerrymandered districts deciding???????

I like the electoral college and states being winner take all, however the issue is the states right to decide how their votes are casts.

 

[candycorn]

why not just go with the popular vote? why would you want to rig the election with gerrymandered districts deciding???????

The problem with the straight popular vote is that the large states will have all of the power. I say have both...our current electoral college AND the plurality of the popular vote. If you don't get both, the House picks the POTUS, the Senate the VPOTUS and we go on from there.

At no point should anyone be okay with the person getting fewer popular votes becoming the President.

 

[OKTexas]

I've always favored dividing electoral votes based on a percentage of the popular vote within a state. It would force candidates to campaign in all states instead of a few swing states. It's not a new idea, a few states already split their electoral votes.

That is a completely different idea from breaking down the EC votes for each Congressional District. That basically would be the same as just going by the popular vote.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either, the final two per state can go by the majority for the state. There is no reason the major metor areas should be able to determine the direction of the whole state.

 

[OKTexas]

it would water down the will of the majority.


Not the founders plan

That was exactly the founders paln, that's why we have a republic.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I've always favored dividing electoral votes based on a percentage of the popular vote within a state. It would force candidates to campaign in all states instead of a few swing states. It's not a new idea, a few states already split their electoral votes.

That is a completely different idea from breaking down the EC votes for each Congressional District. That basically would be the same as just going by the popular vote.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either, the final two per state can go by the majority for the state. There is no reason the major metor areas should be able to determine the direction of the whole state.

Why not? If that's where the majority of people live then they should be able to determine the direction. Tons of people move from the country to the city so it's not like rural parts are completely foreign to city folk. Ironic how city dwelling liberals are more interested in protecting the country and the environment than the rural conservatives who live there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It seems that Republicans are now considering a new idea to try to win the WH next time.

They want to divide up the electoral college votes along gerrymandered House election districts. Considering that the House Dems got over 1,000,000 more votes than House Republicans, yet the GOP retained control of the House, I don't think this is a good idea.

They worked out the math for it on this last election, and if the Red State plan (those are the people who thought it up) were applied, Obama still would have won the popular vote by over a million votes, but he would have lost the electoral college and Mittens would have won.

Fortunately, since this idea has made it into the public, many Reps who were for this idea are now against it (Rove among them), because they know it would be a disaster for them publicly. However, MI is still considering going with this.

Anyone else still think that the GOP plays fair with elections?

Obama campaign strategy was based on the reality of the moment. No matter what the GOP does, a Dem campaign worthy of winning should be able to plan a strategy to win

Doesn't matter in the near run. By 2024 Texas and several other states in the South and Southwest will go Democrat if the GOP does not meet the needs of women and minorities.

 

[Toro]

I've always favored dividing electoral votes based on a percentage of the popular vote within a state. It would force candidates to campaign in all states instead of a few swing states. It's not a new idea, a few states already split their electoral votes.

That is a completely different idea from breaking down the EC votes for each Congressional District. That basically would be the same as just going by the popular vote.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either, the final two per state can go by the majority for the state. There is no reason the major metor areas should be able to determine the direction of the whole state.

The majority determining the direction of the state is much better than the minority determining the direction of the state.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I don't agree with you. Not pious or self-righteous, not even a Republican. It is a states rights issue and all states are allowed to do as they please with their votes.

I believe in the laws, if the Dems wanted to do it, it would be fine, they have tried it and done it before. The state is the say of their votes. BTW, come screaming if it is actually passed, because not even a majority of Republicans in Virginia think this is good for their state.

This is simply not true. Any such reading of state's rights is nullified by the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Also, someone should have explained to you at a young age that a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind.

Sorry, your personal insult aside, the 14th and 15th amendments don't apply in this, otherwise two states would be in violation of the constitution, again where is the violation of the constitution? There is no challenge to those states because they are with in the confines of the current law.

No, those two states aren't gerrmandered in a way that allows a candidate to get most of the electors after he loses.

This is exactly what Virginia proposed, until some Republitards actually realized the consequences.

 

[JoeB131]

it would water down the will of the majority.


Not the founders plan

That was exactly the founders paln, that's why we have a republic.

The Founding Slave Rapers wanted an oligarchy where the landed gentry would run things.

Thankfully we evolved beyond their views on governance...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Award the two senatorial electoral votes to the party that takes the state vote.

Award the congressional district electoral vote to the party that that takes the district vote.

The 2012 election, by the rules above, would have 282 to 256 electoral votes in the GOP's favor.

 

[JoeB131]

Award the two senatorial electoral votes to the party that takes the state vote.

Award the congressional district electoral vote to the party that that takes the district vote.

The 2012 election, by the rules above, would have 282 to 256 electoral votes in the GOP's favor.

And that would have been a good thing, how, exactly?

A guy loses by 5 million votes and he still takes the presidency? You'd have riots in the street if that happened.

The reason why the stupidity that is the Electoral College has survived this long is that the popular vote USUALLY validates it. Replacing a bad system with a worse system isn't a solution.

Hey, here's a whacky idea, Jake. Maybe instead of coming up with new ways to steal the vote, the GOP could maybe get people to actually vote for it again.

 

[1Templar]

A republic has never been, nor will ever be, a true democracy. A republic, was a good choice in 1782, when it took days, to weeks, to get to and from DC. With the dawn of the computer age, and the fading of the iron age, the republican form of government is too slow for a rapidly changing world and attitudes.
The conditions have become favorable for a true democracy... a direct democracy.
The citizens who favor Hobbs, will want to keep the outdated republican form of government. The citizens, who favor Locke, will continue to favor a direct democracy.
It would be a better country with a balance of both forms of government, but those whose feet are stuck in cement will block every move to make this happen... The transformation will have to be made by a future, courageous generation. .