Gerrymander the Electoral College?

[Papageorgio]

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.

Again, where is the proposal unconstitutional? It is with in the states rights to chose how the votes are cast. The proposed law will be in the confines of the Constitution.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

That is not how it worked though, was it? It will never go that way, all,states would have to decide to elect that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the states so gerrymander, of course it can go that way. We may certainly see the states do so over the next four years.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the states so gerrymander, of course it can go that way. We may certainly see the states do so over the next four years.

According to Red State (the people who came up with this idea), even though Obama won the popular vote by over a million votes, if the electoral votes went along the gerrymandered lines, Mittens would have won instead of Obama.

Nope, all states should be winner take all for the electoral votes, or, better yet, simply get rid of the electoral college, because we all have access to voting places now, and the votes are able to be counted quickly because of communications and computers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, the most votes by themselves mean nothing at all. I am not going to let large metro areas dominate the country, even if they do their states.

Electoral votes by senatorial and congressional district party winners makes sense. We might even get some 3rd party participation that way.

 

[Papageorgio]

If the states so gerrymander, of course it can go that way. We may certainly see the states do so over the next four years.

Name the states that you think are going this way in the next four years.

The honest answer is you have no idea and I'd be willing to bet that NONE of them will.

All this is, is a bunch of BS that the Dems want to stir up. The real answer is the Dems would be all for it, if they thought it would benefit them.

So both party's are still retarded and you nuts fall for all the BS.

 

[1Templar]

Right.

 

[1Templar]

No, wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Again, where is the proposal unconstitutional? It is with in the states rights to chose how the votes are cast. The proposed law will be in the confines of the Constitution.

Debatable, but since it isn't going to happen... I don't worry about it.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Instead of trying to find new ways to cheat, maybe the Republicans can actually find ways to get people to vote for them.

I checked out a long time ago, about the time I realized that the GOP was owned by big corporations...

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the states so gerrymander, of course it can go that way. We may certainly see the states do so over the next four years.

Name the states that you think are going this way in the next four years.

The honest answer is you have no idea and I'd be willing to bet that NONE of them will.

All this is, is a bunch of BS that the Dems want to stir up. The real answer is the Dems would be all for it, if they thought it would benefit them.

So both party's are still retarded and you nuts fall for all the BS.

Too bad reality kicks you in the face. Both parties will do it if they feel it will help their chances. ME and NE do it in one fashion or another. It would certainly make NY, CA, and TX far more competitive. Demography and geography are every bit as important as democracy in our constitutional republican government.

 

[Snookie]

Here's a story about the republican dirty trick.

How Swing-State Republicans Are Already Trying to Rig the Next Presidential Election | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

As a general rule I think the "slippery slope" argument has serious flaws. But in this case I think it may be applicable.

States do get to decide how they are going to allocate electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine already split theirs along congressional districts. So imho the GOP plan is legal.

But what would be the likely backlash?

Democrats would play the system in the same way everytime they got the opportunity, so what we wind up with a system of electing the president that is subject to political whims. Voters will lose even more confidence in the system.

The United States peacefully transfers power every four years. Only about 30% of the nations on the planet can say that. And what makes our peaceful transfer of power possible is the faith our people place in the rule of law. Can you imagine how many other countries would have erupted into violence under the circumstances of our 2000 presidential election?

Once again, we see a party eyeing short-term political gain at the expense of long-term national stability. I have to think voters would punish them for that.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

As a general rule I think the "slippery slope" argument has serious flaws. But in this case I think it may be applicable.

States do get to decide how they are going to allocate electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine already split theirs along congressional districts. So imho the GOP plan is legal.

But what would be the likely backlash?

Democrats would play the system in the same way everytime they got the opportunity, so what we wind up with a system of electing the president that is subject to political whims. Voters will lose even more confidence in the system.

The United States peacefully transfers power every four years. Only about 30% of the nations on the planet can say that. And what makes our peaceful transfer of power possible is the faith our people place in the rule of law. Can you imagine how many other countries would have erupted into violence under the circumstances of our 2000 presidential election?

Once again, we see a party eyeing short-term political gain at the expense of long-term national stability. I have to think voters would punish them for that.

The backlash would be an end to the EC

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both parties are subject to political whims when it comes to elections, neither party is more pure or more evil than the other when it comes to this. The GOP would be more subject philosophically to such electoral modification (demographic and geographic representation) than the Dems (democratic winner take all representation).

 

[Snookie]

Beware of karma.

What goes around, comes around.

It's time to get rid of the EC, anyway.

It only stifles the will of the people.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

As a general rule I think the "slippery slope" argument has serious flaws. But in this case I think it may be applicable.

States do get to decide how they are going to allocate electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine already split theirs along congressional districts. So imho the GOP plan is legal.

But what would be the likely backlash?

Democrats would play the system in the same way everytime they got the opportunity, so what we wind up with a system of electing the president that is subject to political whims. Voters will lose even more confidence in the system.

The United States peacefully transfers power every four years. Only about 30% of the nations on the planet can say that. And what makes our peaceful transfer of power possible is the faith our people place in the rule of law. Can you imagine how many other countries would have erupted into violence under the circumstances of our 2000 presidential election?

Once again, we see a party eyeing short-term political gain at the expense of long-term national stability. I have to think voters would punish them for that.

The backlash would be an end to the EC

And since the GOP benefits from the slight over-representation of rural areas in the Electoral College, this response would bite them in the butt.

Their plan is only effective if they only switch states where Democrats traditionally "take all." Factor in all 50 and they fall further behind than they are now.

 

[deaddogseye]

the fact is that if this is done it will over time be a two-edged sword even if in the short term it seems like it will favor the republicans.

as one commentator (James Taranto - who i usually cant stand) pointed out if the Republican plan had been in place in 2000 in Virginia -- Al gore would have beaten Bush because he would have gotten three electoral votes there.

plus for all the whining it is perfectly legal and appropriate if the legislatures pass it and the governors sign it

 

[deaddogseye]

As a general rule I think the "slippery slope" argument has serious flaws. But in this case I think it may be applicable.

States do get to decide how they are going to allocate electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine already split theirs along congressional districts. So imho the GOP plan is legal.

But what would be the likely backlash?

Democrats would play the system in the same way everytime they got the opportunity, so what we wind up with a system of electing the president that is subject to political whims. Voters will lose even more confidence in the system.

The United States peacefully transfers power every four years. Only about 30% of the nations on the planet can say that. And what makes our peaceful transfer of power possible is the faith our people place in the rule of law. Can you imagine how many other countries would have erupted into violence under the circumstances of our 2000 presidential election?

Once again, we see a party eyeing short-term political gain at the expense of long-term national stability. I have to think voters would punish them for that.

The backlash would be an end to the EC

And since the GOP benefits from the slight over-representation of rural areas in the Electoral College, this response would bite them in the butt.

Their plan is only effective if they only switch states where Democrats traditionally "take all." Factor in all 50 and they fall further behind than they are now.

well perhaps but the backlash would have to be such that it would have to be enough for a constitutional amendment requiring ratification by 3/4 of the states. and for all the bluster about doing away with the electoral college -- that aint gonna happen. NFW. My guess is half the states wouldnt support it much less 38 of them

 

[DiamondDave]

Beware of karma.

What goes around, comes around.

It's time to get rid of the EC, anyway.

It only stifles the will of the people.

Ignorance...

There is a reason that the 3 government branches are chosen in 3 differing ways.. BALANCE.. and we ALREADY have a branch that is chosen by direct popular vote.. to have a second branch chosen in the exact same way gives us less balance.. the states (you know, those things that actually give the federal government its power) should indeed have a say in the choosing of one branch, and as we have it now that is the executive... Even the smallest state's voice can be heard in this system...

Will of the people is also knows as tyranny of the majority in many cases... and it is why we have a constitutional representative republic and not a democracy

 

[Snookie]

Beware of karma.

What goes around, comes around.

It's time to get rid of the EC, anyway.

It only stifles the will of the people.

Ignorance...

There is a reason that the 3 government branches are chosen in 3 differing ways.. BALANCE.. and we ALREADY have a branch that is chosen by direct popular vote.. to have a second branch chosen in the exact same way gives us less balance.. the states (you know, those things that actually give the federal government its power) should indeed have a say in the choosing of one branch, and as we have it now that is the executive... Even the smallest state's voice can be heard in this system...

Will of the people is also knows as tyranny of the majority in many cases... and it is why we have a constitutional representative republic and not a democracy

You sound like a Torrie.