If you can't beat 'em, just change the rules

I think if every state apportioned votes like this, Romeny would have won notwithstanding Obama's 5 million vote margin.
 
Dungheap said:
I think if every state apportioned votes like this, Romeny would have won notwithstanding Obama's 5 million vote margin.
Click to expand...

They did a breakdown on one of the cable news shows yesterday, and he would have.

That's why the GOP is pushing this. They're outnumbered; instead of adapting their platform & message, they're just going to do their usual thing & try to change the game.
 
Rana said:
It is actually a Democratic Constitutional Republic, but whose being picky!
Click to expand...

lol... yes... but Republic is the key component in terms of what we are as a country. We elect representatives to make the laws... we do not vote on them individually (as we would in a democracy)
 
Thing1 said:
They did a breakdown on one of the cable news shows yesterday, and he would have.

That's why the GOP is pushing this. They're outnumbered; instead of adapting their platform & message, they're just going to do their usual thing & try to change the game.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the tactic because in time the leftists will contort it into something monstrous. But, how does it differ from any other electoral changing schemes the dems have tried after they got their butts hurt after an election?

Remember the push to do away with the electoral college? Spare me your feigned indignation
 
I Love America said:
I don't agree with the tactic because in time the leftists will contort it into something monstrous. But, how does it differ from any other electoral changing schemes the dems have tried after they got their butts hurt after an election?

Remember the push to do away with the electoral college? Spare me your feigned indignation
Click to expand...


So the question is how changing the process to reflect the will of the majority of the U.S. population different from changing the process to reflect a substantial minority of the U.S. population? Really? You can't figure the answer out on your own?

And, no, I don't remember the push to do away with the electoral college (though I would certainly support one).
 
At least there are 5. I'm very glad Texas doesn't do it on it's own, hardy har har. I had no idea that Texas went for Obama either time!!!!!!!!!
 
Thing1 said:
Republicans in OH, MI, PA and VA (all controlled by the GOP at the state level) are all apparently considering changing the electoral system from a winner-take-all to awarding each candidate by congressional district.

Naturally, their rationale is that they're trying to give smaller communities "more of a voice" in those states.
Click to expand...

Just a cotton pickin' moment there, buddy. If you can't beat 'em, just change the rules??? That is exactly what America has done for decades. Where else in the world would someone think they could 'improve' football that works brilliantly in every other country in the world. Where else would have a 'world series' and not invite other countries? Who else would re-write history to the extent that you 'won' the war in VN and won WWII for us?
Changing rules to suit? It goes with the American territory.
 
Dungheap said:
So the question is how changing the process to reflect the will of the majority of the U.S. population different from changing the process to reflect a substantial minority of the U.S. population? Really? You can't figure the answer out on your own?

And, no, I don't remember the push to do away with the electoral college (though I would certainly support one).
Click to expand...

Well since you don't remember it probably didn't happen
 
There has never been any widespread popular push to eliminate the electoral college. It has been discussed and even loudly so in some irrelevant circles but never any strong or nationally observable dynamic effort to do so. It appears that most Americans don't even vote and many that do have no clue as to what or why the electoral college is.
 
You really can't redistrict your state much to influence the outcome of the presidential contest. Historically, it's always been about swinging your state's Congressional majority from one party to the other. In fact, redistricting cannot influence the presidential race at all (come to think of it) except for within the states of Nebraska and Maine, neither of which happen to be battlegrounds in the slightest...
 
Threedee said:
You really can't redistrict your state much to influence the outcome of the presidential contest. Historically, it's always been about swinging your state's Congressional majority from one party to the other. In fact, redistricting cannot influence the presidential race at all (come to think of it) except for within the states of Nebraska and Maine, neither of which happen to be battlegrounds in the slightest...
Click to expand...

Please keep up or shut up, Threedee. Re-districting not only provides back door avenues to lessen the value of the voter's wills for congressional seats but it also upsets the electoral college in ways that put Presidential votes in greater peril than even now. Even though Al Gore won the popular vote substantially he apparently lost in the electoral college, at least according to the Supreme Court of the United States at the time. It has happened before, will happen again. That's called republicanism.
 
The only way redistricting will ever influence a presidential election is if one or more states successfully swing their Congressional majorities from one party to the other, and then the next presidential election winds up before the House of Representatives. Now shut the fuck up.
 
Threedee said:
The only way redistricting will ever influence a presidential election is if one or more states successfully swing their Congressional majorities from one party to the other, and then the next presidential election winds up before the House of Representatives. Now shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

In just this last election there were 1.5 million more votes cast for Democratic congressional candidates yet the rejerks continue to hold a lead in the house. When more states than Maine and Nebraska join into this idiocy of a republican led drive to invalidate votes it's over for the true American will for leadership in this country. Now, you shut the fuck up. Read through THIS thread. It's all spelled out plainly for you. You look like an idiot at this point.
 
Superfreak said:
If every district was drawn as a square or rectangle and not these rigged safe districts, then I would actually prefer this for every state. But as long as we allow these safe seats, we are simply going to get more and more polarized.
Click to expand...

squares are just as arbitrary as anything else. just because the methodology for dividing up districts is random doesn't mean it would fix the problem of certain states being over or under represented by party
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top