Changing The Electoral College Rules

Changing The Electoral College Rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 7:33:10 AM)
Obama won the Presidency by a margin of 5 million popular votes. But he would have lost the Electoral Vote if they were apportioned by congressional districts instead of winner take all in the following states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. That is the Republican Plan for the 2016 election. They intend to change the rules of the game instead of becoming more inclusive to the national electorate. It looks like they have gerrymandered enough congressional districts in the swing states to pull it off. The Republicans hold the legislature and governor's seat in these states. Your thoughts? Brilliant and fair or third world politics?

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 7:44:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Obama won the Presidency by a margin of 5 million popular votes. But he would have lost the Electoral Vote if they were apportioned by congressional districts instead of winner take all in the following states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. That is the Republican Plan for the 2016 election. They intend to change the rules of the game instead of becoming more inclusive to the national electorate. It looks like they have gerrymandered enough congressional districts in the swing states to pull it off. The Republicans hold the legislature and governor's seat in these states. Your thoughts? Brilliant and fair or third world politics? Eliminate the Electoral College in its entirety. It was needed when it was created. It's use has long expired. Take federal elections OUT of the control of the states. (Including House races). Create an FEC with some teeth. Have an FEC review all Federal House districts for fairness and gerrymandering. If states want to create internal gerrymandered legislative districts for their own state legislature and gubernatorial elections, they are welcome to. But let's keep partisan games out of federal politics.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 8:13:59 AM)
quote: Eliminate the Electoral College in its entirety. It was needed when it was created. It's use has long expired. Elimination of the EC was proposed by Dems back in 1970 and approved by President Nixon, but it went nowhere. Article 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

DomKen -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 8:26:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Obama won the Presidency by a margin of 5 million popular votes. But he would have lost the Electoral Vote if they were apportioned by congressional districts instead of winner take all in the following states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. That is the Republican Plan for the 2016 election. They intend to change the rules of the game instead of becoming more inclusive to the national electorate. It looks like they have gerrymandered enough congressional districts in the swing states to pull it off. The Republicans hold the legislature and governor's seat in these states. Your thoughts? Brilliant and fair or third world politics? I hate the very idea of the electoral college and fully support a national popular vote for President. But if we must have an EC at the very least each state should apportion electors by the popular vote. Not some scheme to give partisan advantage to the minority. BTW the scheme being proposed is not the one presently in place in Nebraska and Maine where one elector is awarded to the winner of each CD and the 2 remaining are given to the overall winner of the states popular vote. Instead the scheme would award the 2 remaining electors to the candidate who won the majority of CD's. This repugnant plan, if implemented in the 6 swing states its been proposed in, would have given an electoral college victory to Romney despite his losing the national popular vote by more than 5 million votes and losing the popular vote in each of those 6 states.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 9:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Eliminate the Electoral College in its entirety. It was needed when it was created. It's use has long expired. Elimination of the EC was proposed by Dems back in 1970 and approved by President Nixon, but it went nowhere. Article 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. I apologize for not stating that. Of course, it would take a Constitutional amendment. I didn't think that needed to be said. The topic was vis-a-vis our position on the EC, not the steps required to remove it. Thanks for your citation though :)

BamaD -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 10:09:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Obama won the Presidency by a margin of 5 million popular votes. But he would have lost the Electoral Vote if they were apportioned by congressional districts instead of winner take all in the following states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. That is the Republican Plan for the 2016 election. They intend to change the rules of the game instead of becoming more inclusive to the national electorate. It looks like they have gerrymandered enough congressional districts in the swing states to pull it off. The Republicans hold the legislature and governor's seat in these states. Your thoughts? Brilliant and fair or third world politics? I voted against Obama but I think tampering with the elctorial college is a bad idea, we would still be recounting the 2000 election if it were done on the popular vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 10:10:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Obama won the Presidency by a margin of 5 million popular votes. But he would have lost the Electoral Vote if they were apportioned by congressional districts instead of winner take all in the following states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. That is the Republican Plan for the 2016 election. They intend to change the rules of the game instead of becoming more inclusive to the national electorate. It looks like they have gerrymandered enough congressional districts in the swing states to pull it off. The Republicans hold the legislature and governor's seat in these states. Your thoughts? Brilliant and fair or third world politics? I hate the very idea of the electoral college and fully support a national popular vote for President. But if we must have an EC at the very least each state should apportion electors by the popular vote. Not some scheme to give partisan advantage to the minority. BTW the scheme being proposed is not the one presently in place in Nebraska and Maine where one elector is awarded to the winner of each CD and the 2 remaining are given to the overall winner of the states popular vote. Instead the scheme would award the 2 remaining electors to the candidate who won the majority of CD's. This repugnant plan, if implemented in the 6 swing states its been proposed in, would have given an electoral college victory to Romney despite his losing the national popular vote by more than 5 million votes and losing the popular vote in each of those 6 states. The Electoral College System should stay. We are not a Democracy, but a Republic. That being said, I favor either the majority winner of each State getting all the electors, or the scheme described by DomKen that is in effect in Nebraska and Maine.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 10:17:05 AM)
quote: I apologize for not stating that. Of course, it would take a Constitutional amendment. I didn't think that needed to be said. The topic was vis-a-vis our position on the EC, not the steps required to remove it. The issue I am trying to raise is the manipulation of the EC by one party to its advantage. Sort of ward politics on a national scale. Ethical? Smart? Loser's ploy?Violation of a long tradition? Brilliant? Pathetic? Dirty? All's fair in love, war and politics? Minority party changing the playing field vs changing itself to expand its base? Rural vs urban/suburban? Racist? Pro gun? Anti Abortion? Increased parochialization of the Party? Etc, etc. What lurks there in motivation and possible outcome?

kdsub -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 10:31:33 AM)
Whatever they do it will someday bite them in the ass...times change and so will political affiliations. Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 11:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I apologize for not stating that. Of course, it would take a Constitutional amendment. I didn't think that needed to be said. The topic was vis-a-vis our position on the EC, not the steps required to remove it. The issue I am trying to raise is the manipulation of the EC by one party to its advantage. Sort of ward politics on a national scale. Ethical? Smart? Loser's ploy?Violation of a long tradition? Brilliant? Pathetic? Dirty? All's fair in love, war and politics? Minority party changing the playing field vs changing itself to expand its base? Rural vs urban/suburban? Racist? Pro gun? Anti Abortion? Increased parochialization of the Party? Etc, etc. What lurks there in motivation and possible outcome? I am against gerrymandering. Even wrote an email to Gov. Kasich about it. Didn't stop them though. I think a bi-partisan - equal membership - should be formed to remap the Districts, or use some baseline; Ohio gets X Rep's, so each District should be about (Ohio Pop. according to Census)/X.

Moonhead -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 11:17:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I voted against Obama but I think tampering with the elctorial college is a bad idea, we would still be recounting the 2000 election if it were done on the popular vote. Don't talk such crap. It wouldn't have taken twelve years to do a thorough recount, even if the recount hadn't been illegally stopped.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 11:57:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I voted against Obama but I think tampering with the elctorial college is a bad idea, we would still be recounting the 2000 election if it were done on the popular vote. Don't talk such crap. It wouldn't have taken twelve years to do a thorough recount, even if the recount hadn't been illegally stopped. Well... I would have put it more politely... But this is exactly to my point. If voting were done nationally and electronically, recounts would be obsolete. A simple review of the records is all that is needed. The reason that voting is a nightmare in swing states controlled by Republicans (e.g. Florida), and it is a joy in my state (Washington) is because the states control the rules. Take the states OUT of governing federal elections. Let's get closer to a democracy than a Republic. The "Republic" concept is failing more and more every day as states find more ways to rig the system.

DarkSteven -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 12:07:37 PM)
There's no way that this will happen. To change rules only in those states and not in others will never survive a Democratic challenge in the courts. Plus, the bad press that the GOP got for setting up voter qualifications that would favor them should dissuade them for this much more blatant election manipulation. The GOP had enough PR nightmares in 2012. If they try to pull this, the Dems will attack them in the courts and in ads.

joether -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 12:49:19 PM)
Gerrymandering by the GOP at its best! All those years of trying to change who got to vote where, the under-handed tactics, misinformation machines, and than the voter ID laws showed the GOP should not be trusted with power. During the Bush administration, power was wielded, not with wisdom and temperment, but out of control. An it was not limited just to the White House, but Congress as well. Changing power to undermine the will of the people, so that a tiny group can have total power over said people is NOT Democratic. Its NOT a Republic. Its a....TYRANNY! Of course, thats not how the GOP will explain truth and facts; we all know this. Why are we kidding ourselves? If it was really the popular vote, why keep invisible lines for districts? Why not anyone in the state and vote anywhere they wish? Is that not a real 'Freedom to Vote' concept? Long lines at one voting booth local? Cross town or haul three towns away where you work, and vote there instead! While we are at it, how about we withhold who actually wins in a state, barring the media until such time as the last poll location closes. That way the contest isnt decided or known until AFTER Hawaii and Alaska have closed their voting booths. Since in some elections, when it was thought their canidate was going to lose, voters simply stayed home.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 5:09:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven There's no way that this will happen. To change rules only in those states and not in others will never survive a Democratic challenge in the courts. Plus, the bad press that the GOP got for setting up voter qualifications that would favor them should dissuade them for this much more blatant election manipulation. The GOP had enough PR nightmares in 2012. If they try to pull this, the Dems will attack them in the courts and in ads. I really don't see what the basis of the challenge could be. Article 2 seems pretty clear in giving the state legislatures the power to have the Electors chosen however they wish. You make an excellent point about the bad publicity. However, the gerrymandered districts fall along the lines of rural vs urban/suburban with the Republicans in control of the rural districts in the six states. To me the situation suggests plenty of fodder for playing on religion v secularism, anti-intellectualism, fear of black helicopters coming to take away guns, and of course the old "southern strategy" standby of fear of blacks and browns. Are the Republicans desperate enough to retake the Presidency to withstand howls from the densely populated Dem strongholds in the cities and burbs? I think they might be.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/26/2013 5:12:53 PM)
quote: While we are at it, how about we withhold who actually wins in a state, barring the media until such time as the last poll location closes. That way the contest isnt decided or known until AFTER Hawaii and Alaska have closed their voting booths. Since in some elections, when it was thought their canidate was going to lose, voters simply stayed home. Don't know if that could be done. Much of calling the results relies on exit polling. Secondly, I wonder if withholding results could be challenged as an infringement on the Press.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 8:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Obama won the Presidency by a margin of 5 million popular votes. But he would have lost the Electoral Vote if they were apportioned by congressional districts instead of winner take all in the following states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. That is the Republican Plan for the 2016 election. They intend to change the rules of the game instead of becoming more inclusive to the national electorate. It looks like they have gerrymandered enough congressional districts in the swing states to pull it off. The Republicans hold the legislature and governor's seat in these states. Your thoughts? Brilliant and fair or third world politics? An entire political manipulation. Why do we vote if the Electoral College is in fact, regardless of the vote count, how our Prez gets elected? Eliminate one or the other and tell the truth as to how our system works.

vincentML -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 8:50:51 AM)
quote: An entire political manipulation. Why do we vote if the Electoral College is in fact, regardless of the vote count, how our Prez gets elected? Eliminate one or the other and tell the truth as to how our system works. I think it continues as a compromise to the smaller states who get the same two elector votes for senator as the larger states. So, Wyoming has three electors but only one represents the voters. I think I have that right. The EC as you know is born of an era when transportation to the Capitol was horseback or horse drawn on rutty, muddy roads. Obviously, that is no longer a need. What I was trying to address in the OP is the motives and consequences of manipulation of the system by the losing Party. The only way it will be twarted I think is by the ethics of the Governors of those six states. Not sure we can depend on that.[8\|] The other option is to unseat those Govs in the 2014 election. In which case the people of the states will have a voice in the matter beforehand.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 9:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: An entire political manipulation. Why do we vote if the Electoral College is in fact, regardless of the vote count, how our Prez gets elected? Eliminate one or the other and tell the truth as to how our system works. I think it continues as a compromise to the smaller states who get the same two elector votes for senator as the larger states. So, Wyoming has three electors but only one represents the voters. I think I have that right. The EC as you know is born of an era when transportation to the Capitol was horseback or horse drawn on rutty, muddy roads. Obviously, that is no longer a need. What I was trying to address in the OP is the motives and consequences of manipulation of the system by the losing Party. The only way it will be twarted I think is by the ethics of the Governors of those six states. Not sure we can depend on that.[8\|] The other option is to unseat those Govs in the 2014 election. In which case the people of the states will have a voice in the matter beforehand. Actually, the first election that a new Governor will be able to effect through re-districting would be 2024, since Districts are mapped only after each census. However, making changes to the way electors are selected could be done before the election.

dcnovice -> RE: Changing The Electoral College Rules (1/27/2013 9:31:22 AM)
quote: I voted against Obama but I think tampering with the elctorial college is a bad idea, we would still be recounting the 2000 election if it were done on the popular vote. How do you figure that? Wasn't Gore ahead by half a million votes?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875