goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Shacks on January 18, 2013, 01:41:35 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-election-laws-091622720--election.html
Opinion on this? I'd say I'm slightly left of center, and I think this a good idea...but only if it can apply to every state, not just states that Republicans want to cherrypick. Can't whine about blue states giving all of their electoral votes to a Democratic candidate and want to change that without giving Democrats an opportunity to gain some electoral votes from states that always vote red. Not sure how the math adds up and if Obama would have still won the last election had every state been using this system, but he did have five million more votes than Romney overall.
I do find it interesting that after the last election, Republicans seem to have decided that their biggest problem was the system, not their candidates and platform.
-
At least 2 states do something similar already. It's pretty clear in the Const, the article and the 2000 election that the handling of the electoral college is a state decision, so it obviously wouldn't apply to everyone.
Not sure if you or the author of the article is more of a clueless dumbass. Opinion?
-
Nebraska and Maine do this I believe but no one gives a crap about them
-
At least 2 states do something similar already. It's pretty clear in the Const, the article and the 2000 election that the handling of the electoral college is a state decision, so it obviously wouldn't apply to everyone.
Not sure if you or the author of the article is more of a clueless dumbass. Opinion?
No crap it's a state decision. I only said that I think it's a good idea if it applies to every state, not that it would be possible or legal only if it applied to every state. I do think voter turnout would increase if every vote in every state mattered. If you're voting Democrat in Kansas or Republican in California, you might as well not show up on Election Day because your vote is meaningless. But if your vote could determine what percentage of your state's electoral votes went to the candidate of your choice, more people would vote.
It comes off as hypocrisy and sore loser behavior if Republicans are only going to advocate for splitting up electoral votes in states they consistently lose. Can't complain about not getting electoral votes from blue states while not finding a problem with getting 100% of the electoral votes from red states.
-
I think its dumb for states that have decent electoral values and are close to evenly split. It diminishes the value of your state on the national level. If Ohio did it, the difference for either candidate would be 1 or 2 electoral votes. The parties would care less to help any grant or legislation of particular interest (steel or coal perhaps) to Ohio.
-
considering the fact that the republicans gerrymandered the crap out of districts, it makes sense that this is something they would want to do for at least the next 10 years.
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
By the way, after the 2000 election, the democrats started this push http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
-
I think all states should do this. (DNR but I assume we are talking about proportional electoral votes instead of winner take all.)
Would make 3rd parties slightly more possible
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
-
considering the fact that the republicans gerrymandered the crap out of districts, it makes sense that this is something they would want to do for at least the next 10 years.
Yeah, Republicans are the only ones who gerrymander. Good grief michicat, nice #msnbcpost
:facepalm:
-
considering the fact that the republicans gerrymandered the crap out of districts, it makes sense that this is something they would want to do for at least the next 10 years.
Yeah, Republicans are the only ones who gerrymander. Good grief michicat, nice #msnbcpost
:facepalm:
Of course both sides gerrymander you dipshit.
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
The census requires that every person be counted, whether they can legally vote or not, and the electoral votes are proportioned by this count. California has millions of people that can't vote, and all of those electoral votes will always go to the democrat.
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
The census requires that every person be counted, whether they can legally vote or not, and the electoral votes are proportioned by this count. California has millions of people that can't vote, and all of those electoral votes will always go to the democrat.
How is this different from Texas? (other than California has more people and doesn't go republican)
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
The census requires that every person be counted, whether they can legally vote or not, and the electoral votes are proportioned by this count. California has millions of people that can't vote, and all of those electoral votes will always go to the democrat.
Funny how immigration... the off-the-boat/cross the border kind... made this country what it is today. Irish, German, Scandinavian, and now hispanic.
But, by all means, continue the xenophobic racism... It only bodes well for the democrats.
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
The census requires that every person be counted, whether they can legally vote or not, and the electoral votes are proportioned by this count. California has millions of people that can't vote, and all of those electoral votes will always go to the democrat.
How is this different from Texas? (other than California has more people and doesn't go republican)
It isn't, and the point is in regards the large block of electoral votes, so you can't take population out of the equation. 55 vs 38
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
The census requires that every person be counted, whether they can legally vote or not, and the electoral votes are proportioned by this count. California has millions of people that can't vote, and all of those electoral votes will always go to the democrat.
Thinly veiled racism
-
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/18/16586687-if-you-cant-win-elections-rig-them?lite
Maddow clownsuits anyone pushing for this.
-
Why not just abolish the electoral college and use the popular vote? That thing has run its course, imo.
-
Why not just abolish the electoral college and use the popular vote? That thing has run its course, imo.
Because if you're a minority party with hugely unpopular ideas for governing , you need the electoral college badly.
-
Why not just abolish the electoral college and use the popular vote? That thing has run its course, imo.
abolish something that has outlived it's usefulness in modern society (like the second amendment), yeah, i'm sure the republicans will be all over that.
-
It is bs that California will always provide 1/5 of the electoral votes the democrat candidate needs to win.
Why is that "bs"?
The census requires that every person be counted, whether they can legally vote or not, and the electoral votes are proportioned by this count. California has millions of people that can't vote, and all of those electoral votes will always go to the democrat.
Thinly veiled racism
OK_cat sock
-
considering the fact that the republicans gerrymandered the crap out of districts, it makes sense that this is something they would want to do for at least the next 10 years.
Yeah, Republicans are the only ones who gerrymander. Good grief michicat, nice #msnbcpost
:facepalm:
Of course both sides gerrymander you dipshit.
Man, get this guy a tissue. :surprised: