Fixing the GOP Pt 1- Get rid of the Electoral College.

[jillian]

OK, so you want NYC, Chicago and a handful of other cities to decide the election?
Good plan.

I was wondering how long it would take a conservatard to mke this argument.

Assuming that everyone in these big evil cities voted the same way (they don't), how many of them would have to vote before we get to half the 120 million or so who vote.


List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And frankly, I'd rather have these elections decided in the "big cities" where people live rather than rural wastelands like IA and NH that already have an outsized role in this process in the stupid primaries.

you know, i find it amusing when they complain that highly populous states shouldn't decide the election. first, why should someone in idaho have a greater bang for their vote than i do. second, as long as new york state is counted for electoral college purposes, it is most likely to be a blue state. yet, we've had republican governors... repubilcan senators (when the GOP weren't a bunch of nutbars)... republican mayors of new york city.

 

[JoeB131]

You are stupid beyond stupid. Even if everything you said is true, which is a really stupid assumption, it is in no way an argument to get rid of the electoral college. Let us ignore that though, and assume that it was actually a valid argument, why would the Democrats give up a clear advantage like you just described?

I usually ignore you because you are like a crazy person..

But you miss my point. Most sensible people think that the Electoral College is actually kind of retarded. The GOP could actually gain Senate, House and Legislature seats merely by advocating it as a reform.

The Democrats benefit from it, but they can hardly defend it. Especially after all the carping and whining they did about how Bush won in 2000.

 

[JoeB131]

Jeebus people are fucking dumb. It makes one want to just drop out and let them free for all it up, mob rule style with their "democracy".

Hive minded drones.

So you are good with the fact this election was decided in five states?

I'm not.

I want a president who appeals to all fifty states, not just the ones he has to "swing".

Case in point. Romney lost this thing in Ohio. the reason he lost Ohio was that in his sorry ass attempt to appeal to the emerging Tea Party movement, he denounced the notion of an Auto Bailout. "Let them Eat Bankruptcy", he said.

Now, I think this was wrong, but let's say for the moment he had a point. The fact is, this one state greatly benefited from it, and it was the one that decided the election. Maybe the bailout wasn't so wonderful for the other 48... but it was good for Michigan and Ohio, and they decided the election.

You see the problem?

 

[JoeB131]

The electoral college is not a bad system.
Complete Democracy is a bad system.
Slavery and witch trials had nothing to do with the USA being a Republic. Those were social issues and by rights of our Republic Constitutionality was eventually righted.
Stop believing the lefty rhetoric that Ohio won the election. They lost 2 electoral collage votes from the last census.

But the point is, they were the "Swing State". There wasn't a scenario where Romney could win without Ohio. Once Ohio was called, Romney was done.

Now imagine if there was a popular vote. And people in those states Romney won considered it worth showing up. He only trailed Obama by about 2-4 million votes. A strong turnout could have swung the election his way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In this series, I will examine what the GOP needs to do to avoid political irrelevence in the coming years and make a comeback in a changing America.

1) The Electoral College is not your friend. – And here’s the problem. In states Democrats have won in the last 6 elections, Democrats get 242 Electoral votes. The Republican make noise every year about how they are going to contest them, and they are usually called before 9 PM. In three other states they’ve won 5 of the last six times, they get another 15. So in short, the Democrat pretty much starts at 257. That just allows them to pick and choose which state they put their chips on while Republicans have to cover all the bases.

More to the point, it lets party apparatuses atrophy in “Blue” states where there are still a lot of voters who would be happy to vote for you. That could make you more competitive in Senate and House races.

The GOP should make this a signature issue, for no other reason than making the Dems ironically defend the mechanism that put George W. Bush in office. And there are two levels they can fight this fight. One is pushing to have more states do it the way Nebraska and Maine do it (by congressional district). The other is to push for a constitutional amendment.

The reasons why the GOP will resist. Part of it is their recalcitrance to admiting old Dubya was a huge mistake. The other is that there are a lot of what I like to call "constitutional fetishists" out there who think that the Constitution was written on Stone Tablets, and if their 18th century minds didn't think of it, it must not be valid.

The problem here is such a change should be made for the greater benefit of the Nation, not to benefit a particular party.

And amending the Constitution to determine the presidency via popular vote would likely conflict with Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy; eliminating the EC would serve to only undermine that guarantee.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem here is such a change should be made for the greater benefit of the Nation, not to benefit a particular party.

And amending the Constitution to determine the presidency via popular vote would likely conflict with Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy; eliminating the EC would serve to only undermine that guarantee.

Can you honestly say the clusterfuck we go through every four years is good for the nation?

We can retain a "republican" form of government and still elect the president directly.

True democracy would be a bad idea, because it would just reflect the mood of the moment.

We need the filter of elected officials who spend more time considering the problem that most of us have time to.

We don't need an archaic system devised by 18th century aristocrats who really didn't trust the average man to even vote.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Jeebus people are fucking dumb. It makes one want to just drop out and let them free for all it up, mob rule style with their "democracy".

Hive minded drones.

So you are good with the fact this election was decided in five states?

I'm not.

I want a president who appeals to all fifty states, not just the ones he has to "swing".

Case in point. Romney lost this thing in Ohio. the reason he lost Ohio was that in his sorry ass attempt to appeal to the emerging Tea Party movement, he denounced the notion of an Auto Bailout. "Let them Eat Bankruptcy", he said.

Now, I think this was wrong, but let's say for the moment he had a point. The fact is, this one state greatly benefited from it, and it was the one that decided the election. Maybe the bailout wasn't so wonderful for the other 48... but it was good for Michigan and Ohio, and they decided the election.

You see the problem?

It wasn't decided in 5 states. Are you suggesting that only 5 states voted? C'mon, dude. Seriously. There was a point to the electoral college. Next you'll call for direct democracy.

 

[JoeB131]

It wasn't decided in 5 states. Are you suggesting that only 5 states voted? C'mon, dude. Seriously. There was a point to the electoral college. Next you'll call for direct democracy.

When 40 states aren't even in play because one side or the other has such an advantage in them, yes, this thing was really decided by about 5 states.

The big states (CA, IL, NY, TX) haven't been in play in a generation.

But I can understand why you don't trust democracy. At least not since they started letting the Darkies vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are stupid beyond stupid. Even if everything you said is true, which is a really stupid assumption, it is in no way an argument to get rid of the electoral college. Let us ignore that though, and assume that it was actually a valid argument, why would the Democrats give up a clear advantage like you just described?

I usually ignore you because you are like a crazy person..

But you miss my point. Most sensible people think that the Electoral College is actually kind of retarded. The GOP could actually gain Senate, House and Legislature seats merely by advocating it as a reform.

The Democrats benefit from it, but they can hardly defend it. Especially after all the carping and whining they did about how Bush won in 2000.

The intelligent, well educated, critical thinking ones think it serves a useful purpose. Is there a reason I should pick common sense, which tells me the world is flat, over the ability to think?

The intelligent and educated people think it serves a purpose,

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It wasn't decided in 5 states. Are you suggesting that only 5 states voted? C'mon, dude. Seriously. There was a point to the electoral college. Next you'll call for direct democracy.

When 40 states aren't even in play because one side or the other has such an advantage in them, yes, this thing was really decided by about 5 states.

The big states (CA, IL, NY, TX) haven't been in play in a generation.

But I can understand why you don't trust democracy. At least not since they started letting the Darkies vote.

You need to see passed the end of your nose on this, I suppose.

 

[JoeB131]

The intelligent, well educated, critical thinking ones think it serves a useful purpose. Is there a reason I should pick common sense, which tells me the world is flat, over the ability to think?

The intelligent and educated people think it serves a purpose,

I haven't heard an "intelligent" excuse for it yet.

The usual excuses are

"The Founding Slave-Rapers thought it was a good idea".

"Direct Democracy... bad!!!! D'oy!"

and the classic

"The big cities will decide everything". (You mean where people actually LIVE! The horror of it all!)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There you go. Advocating direct democracy.

 

[JoeB131]

There you go. Advocating direct democracy.

Which I really didn't do.

Not that it's some horrible thing, acutally.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The intelligent, well educated, critical thinking ones think it serves a useful purpose. Is there a reason I should pick common sense, which tells me the world is flat, over the ability to think?

The intelligent and educated people think it serves a purpose,

I haven't heard an "intelligent" excuse for it yet.

The usual excuses are

"The Founding Slave-Rapers thought it was a good idea".

"Direct Democracy... bad!!!! D'oy!"

and the classic

"The big cities will decide everything". (You mean where people actually LIVE! The horror of it all!)

I suggest you start by reading Federalist Number 68.

 

[there4eyeM]

Many things have changed since the eighteenth century.

Simply going to direct vote of the president is not a revolution of the Constitution or the republic. That one act would not render the entire system a direct democracy (obviously; what a silly argument in the first place!).

 

[Lakhota]

There's nothing wrong with the GOP.

There's something wrong with this country, the media, and many of the ingrates that call themselves citizens of this nation.

Yeah, Charles Manson probably thinks he's sane, too...

 

[jgarden]

Fixing the GOP Pt 1- Get rid of the Electoral College.

I was always under the impression that the Republicans prided themselves as the guardians of the US Constitution - from the liberal "hordes." The last time I looked, wasn't the Electoral College part of the Constitution?

Strange that there was no Republican demand for changes to the Electoral College back in 2000 when GW Bush won in the Electoral College but received approximately 1/2 million fewer votes nationally than Gore.

 

[auditor0007]

There's nothing wrong with the GOP.

There's something wrong with this country, the media, and many of the ingrates that call themselves citizens of this nation.

Keep thinking that, all the way into complete irrelevance.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

In this series, I will examine what the GOP needs to do to avoid political irrelevence in the coming years and make a comeback in a changing America.

1) The Electoral College is not your friend. – And here’s the problem. In states Democrats have won in the last 6 elections, Democrats get 242 Electoral votes. The Republican make noise every year about how they are going to contest them, and they are usually called before 9 PM. In three other states they’ve won 5 of the last six times, they get another 15. So in short, the Democrat pretty much starts at 257. That just allows them to pick and choose which state they put their chips on while Republicans have to cover all the bases.

More to the point, it lets party apparatuses atrophy in “Blue” states where there are still a lot of voters who would be happy to vote for you. That could make you more competitive in Senate and House races.

The GOP should make this a signature issue, for no other reason than making the Dems ironically defend the mechanism that put George W. Bush in office. And there are two levels they can fight this fight. One is pushing to have more states do it the way Nebraska and Maine do it (by congressional district). The other is to push for a constitutional amendment.

The reasons why the GOP will resist. Part of it is their recalcitrance to admiting old Dubya was a huge mistake. The other is that there are a lot of what I like to call "constitutional fetishists" out there who think that the Constitution was written on Stone Tablets, and if their 18th century minds didn't think of it, it must not be valid.

I would not think that the Democrats would defend the electoral college - and in fact I believe it will make it far easier for Democrats to win, for reasons showcased in this election. Result would be that Democrats would focus the effort on targeting voters very large cities and turning them out en-masse. That was the strategy followed in this election in each battleground state. It is much easier to run such an effort in a small number of high-value areas, rather than the Republican task: the Republican base is primarily rural, hence it would involve outreach in many more areas of lesser electoral value (and hence a more complicated effort). To compound the point, many urban states including New York and California are well below the voter turnout average nationwide. I don't think this would work from a Republican standpoint.

 

[editec]

The electorial college grants sparsely popilated states far more electoral votes than are warranted by the numbers.

So moving to a popular vote would actually make the DEMS stronger and the GOP weaker.