Republicans look to change election rules

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12828 posts) -

Story

Essentially, a district with 5,000 people would have the save vote as a district with 50,000.

Sad. Come on republicans; you win some, you lose some. No need to take the ball with you when you go home.

#2 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
Time to get rid of the EC.
#3 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12828 posts) -

Time to get rid of the EC.DaBrainz

Yup.

#4 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

They are worried that this is the only way for them to stay competitive at the national level. It's beginning to look like the electoral college - as is - is systemically unfavorable to the GOP. All things being equal I don't see how the republican party can survive nationally in a minority-majority country without a handicap.

#5 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12828 posts) -

They are worried that this is the only way for them to stay competitive at the national level. It's beginning to look like the electoral college - as is - is systemically unfavorable to the GOP. All things being equal I don't see how the republican party can survive nationally in a minority-majority country without a handicap.

-Sun_Tzu-

That's not how democracy is done.

#6 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9206 posts) -

Get rid of the electorial college all together. Pass a bill requiring electoral delegates to vote according to the results of the nation wide popular vote.. By pass the entire system.

#7 Posted by AFBrat77 (24087 posts) -

Get rid of the electorial college all together. Pass a bill requiring electoral delegates to vote according to the results of the nation wide popular vote.. By pass the entire system.

UnknownSniper65

Wish we had Gore win over dubya in 2000

#8 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Get rid of the electorial college all together. Pass a bill requiring electoral delegates to vote according to the results of the nation wide popular vote.. By pass the entire system.

UnknownSniper65

We are already 50% of the way there.

#9 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

They are worried that this is the only way for them to stay competitive at the national level. It's beginning to look like the electoral college - as is - is systemically unfavorable to the GOP. All things being equal I don't see how the republican party can survive nationally in a minority-majority country without a handicap.

br0kenrabbit

That's not how democracy is done.

Democracy?

#10 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
Well, they can't play 4 quarters of football so they're trying to end the game after 3 quarters when they're ahead.
#11 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12828 posts) -

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

They are worried that this is the only way for them to stay competitive at the national level. It's beginning to look like the electoral college - as is - is systemically unfavorable to the GOP. All things being equal I don't see how the republican party can survive nationally in a minority-majority country without a handicap.

-Sun_Tzu-

That's not how democracy is done.

Democracy?

*sigh*

We need a king.

How about me?

:D

...

:(

#12 Posted by AFBrat77 (24087 posts) -

Well, they can't play 4 quarters of football so they're trying to end the game after 3 quarters when they're ahead. DroidPhysX

haha, I like that statement :)

#13 Posted by sonicare (53451 posts) -

I thought rezoning voting districts was the domain of democrats. You sad republicans.

#14 Posted by Maniacc1 (5354 posts) -

Basically gerrymandering taken to the extreme. What is funny, however, is election and voter fraud seems to have always been a part of American life. A Democratic boat took voters up the Mississippi so they could vote in 3 separate locations, basically ensuring Polk's win over Clay in 1844, for example:P

#15 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

I still don't get why states are allowed to decide what they do in a federal election.

IF they can legally do this, states just have way too much power, and the constitution needs serious ammending.

#16 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

This is a tacit admission that the GOP doesn't see itself winning in 2016. Really sad.

#17 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
Relevant [quote="Center for Politics"] The congressional district system, if adopted for the entire nation, would give Republicans a major advantage in presidential elections. Thats because Republicans controlled the redistricting process after the 2010 census in far more states than Democrats as a result of the GOPs big gains in the 2010 midterm elections. By drawing congressional districts that favored the GOP, Republican state legislatures and governors gave their party a big edge in the battle for control of the House of Representatives. The result was that in 2012, even though Democratic candidates outpolled Republican candidates by more than a million votes across the nation, Republicans kept control of the House by a margin of 234 seats to 201 seats. The results of GOP gerrymandering were also clearly evident in the presidential election. Across the nation, Obama defeated Mitt Romney by almost four percentage points and close to five million votes. However, based on the results that are currently available we can estimate that Romney carried 228 House districts to only 207 for Obama. So despite Obamas comfortable margin in the national popular vote, a system that awarded one electoral vote for each House district plus two votes for the statewide winner would have resulted in a Romney victory by 276 electoral votes to 262 electoral votes.

So, read that again. Under this proposed plan, Romney would be president right now despite losing the national popular vote by almost 5 MILLION votes and 4% popular vote percentage. Six most likely targets It should be noted, in the interest of fairness, that a very important Republican State senator came out against this in Virginia and it looks like it won't happen there. Link Additionally, Florida also looks like a no-go. Link Now, this is just words at this point and they may change their minds, but in at least those two states it looks like they've done the math that the backlash against this wouldn't be worth it and/or it would never withstand judicial challenge.
#18 Posted by lamprey263 (23205 posts) -
I remember hearing the other day that Obama won Virginia by 150,000 votes, got all 13 electoral votes, under the new Republican plan to split votes the 2012 results under the proposed rules would have got him 4 electoral votes and Romney 9 electoral votes... so in case you missed that the guy with less votes would get more than double the electoral college votes than the guy who won.
#19 Posted by Serraph105 (27824 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

They are worried that this is the only way for them to stay competitive at the national level. It's beginning to look like the electoral college - as is - is systemically unfavorable to the GOP. All things being equal I don't see how the republican party can survive nationally in a minority-majority country without a handicap.

br0kenrabbit

That's not how democracy is done.

This. If you can't get elected by the people you should change your message or quit. You don't change the voting rules so all of a sudden you have the advantage.
#20 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.
#21 Posted by sonicare (53451 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Relevant [quote="Center for Politics"] The congressional district system, if adopted for the entire nation, would give Republicans a major advantage in presidential elections. Thats because Republicans controlled the redistricting process after the 2010 census in far more states than Democrats as a result of the GOPs big gains in the 2010 midterm elections. By drawing congressional districts that favored the GOP, Republican state legislatures and governors gave their party a big edge in the battle for control of the House of Representatives. The result was that in 2012, even though Democratic candidates outpolled Republican candidates by more than a million votes across the nation, Republicans kept control of the House by a margin of 234 seats to 201 seats. The results of GOP gerrymandering were also clearly evident in the presidential election. Across the nation, Obama defeated Mitt Romney by almost four percentage points and close to five million votes. However, based on the results that are currently available we can estimate that Romney carried 228 House districts to only 207 for Obama. So despite Obamas comfortable margin in the national popular vote, a system that awarded one electoral vote for each House district plus two votes for the statewide winner would have resulted in a Romney victory by 276 electoral votes to 262 electoral votes.

So, read that again. Under this proposed plan, Romney would be president right now despite losing the national popular vote by almost 5 MILLION votes and 4% popular vote percentage. Six most likely targets It should be noted, in the interest of fairness, that a very important Republican State senator came out against this in Virginia and it looks like it won't happen there. Link Additionally, Florida also looks like a no-go. Link Now, this is just words at this point and they may change their minds, but in at least those two states it looks like they've done the math that the backlash against this wouldn't be worth it and/or it would never withstand judicial challenge.

Electoral college system is anitquated. Doesnt make sense in modern times. Should be popular votes only. Each state still has 2 senators to help them keep relevant, but the president should be popular vote only.
#22 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.MrPraline
That is true. They don't even have to be pro gay marriage, they just have to say it.
#23 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12828 posts) -

Now, this is just words at this point and they may change their minds, but in at least those two states it looks like they've done the math that the backlash against this wouldn't be worth it and/or it would never withstand judicial challenge. nocoolnamejim

Whether it passes in any state or not, it just makes clear that the intent of those who support such a measure is not democracy.

#24 Posted by osirisx3 (1756 posts) -

more proof they need ignorant village folk to win votes.

#25 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Now, this is just words at this point and they may change their minds, but in at least those two states it looks like they've done the math that the backlash against this wouldn't be worth it and/or it would never withstand judicial challenge. br0kenrabbit

Whether it passes in any state or not, it just makes clear that the intent of those who support such a measure is not democracy.

Obviously not. Just like the voter suppression attempts from last election, the intent of something like this is naked partisanship to try and win by, bluntly, cheating.
#26 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.MrPraline
And taxes and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the CFPB, and the NLRB and affirmative action, and unions, and defense spending and gun control and prayer in schools and....you get the idea. Admittedly I agree on the underlying point that I wish Democrats would stake out positions FURTHER to the left than they presently do and that both parties are a little too corporate controlled, but if the two parties more or less agreed on everything we wouldn't have constant gridlock in the House and Senate.
#27 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12828 posts) -

Obviously not. Just like the voter suppression attempts from last election, the intent of something like this is naked partisanship to try and win by, bluntly, cheating.nocoolnamejim

Pretty much shenanigans all around. I can't wait for the GOP to cease existing. If a real financially conservative party stepped up and kept their hands out of our bedrooms and off our women they might do just fine. But this bull$hit isn't going to fly.

#28 Posted by AFBrat77 (24087 posts) -

If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.MrPraline

This is the conundrum Republicans face, in order to be more electable they are going to need to move further to the left, no question about it.

What was considered Liberal 10 years ago is now moderate and closer in line with what the majority of Americans want at this point.

#29 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.nocoolnamejim
And taxes and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the CFPB, and the NLRB and affirmative action, and unions, and defense spending and gun control and prayer in schools and....you get the idea. Admittedly I agree on the underlying point that I wish Democrats would stake out positions FURTHER to the left than they presently do and that both parties are a little too corporate controlled, but if the two parties more or less agreed on everything we wouldn't have constant gridlock in the House and Senate.

Hah, you and your nuance. ;}
#30 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.MrPraline
And taxes and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the CFPB, and the NLRB and affirmative action, and unions, and defense spending and gun control and prayer in schools and....you get the idea. Admittedly I agree on the underlying point that I wish Democrats would stake out positions FURTHER to the left than they presently do and that both parties are a little too corporate controlled, but if the two parties more or less agreed on everything we wouldn't have constant gridlock in the House and Senate.

Hah, you and your nuance. ;}

I've watched you say about a thousand times "both Democrats and Republicans are exactly alike" for months and each time I wondered why nobody had ever taken ten seconds to disagree. I mean, I would have thought SOMEONE on either side of the constant debates here would have been offended by being associated with the other side...but nobody ever said anything. After a while I actually started thinking of it as a little game. I wanted to see how long it would be before someone took ten seconds to throw out a half-assed list like the one above but nobody ever did. Tell me truly...do you have this entire forum Jedi Mind Controlled? :P
#31 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] And taxes and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the CFPB, and the NLRB and affirmative action, and unions, and defense spending and gun control and prayer in schools and....you get the idea. Admittedly I agree on the underlying point that I wish Democrats would stake out positions FURTHER to the left than they presently do and that both parties are a little too corporate controlled, but if the two parties more or less agreed on everything we wouldn't have constant gridlock in the House and Senate.

Hah, you and your nuance. ;}

I've watched you say about a thousand times "both Democrats and Republicans are exactly alike" for months and each time I wondered why nobody had ever taken ten seconds to disagree. I mean, I would have thought SOMEONE on either side of the constant debates here would have been offended by being associated with the other side...but nobody ever said anything. After a while I actually started thinking of it as a little game. I wanted to see how long it would be before someone took ten seconds to throw out a half-assed list like the one above but nobody ever did. Tell me truly...do you have this entire forum Jedi Mind Controlled? :P

Haha. Either that or nobody takes me seriously. Will go with the mind control.
#32 Posted by JML897 (33120 posts) -

This is a tacit admission that the GOP doesn't see itself winning in 2016. Really sad.

jimkabrhel

I think Chris Christie can win with the current system. It might not even be that close if the Dems nominate a John Kerry/Mitt Romney "robotic politician" type.

#33 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

This is a tacit admission that the GOP doesn't see itself winning in 2016. Really sad.

JML897

I think Chris Christie can win with the current system. It might not even be that close if the Dems nominate a John Kerry/Mitt Romney "robotic politician" type.

With the way he has been speaking this year, I don't think Christ Christie passes the GOP purity test, not any more. He might win a decent number of Democratic votes, if the Dem's are dissatisfied with their candidate, but I don't think Christie gets that far.

#34 Posted by JML897 (33120 posts) -

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

This is a tacit admission that the GOP doesn't see itself winning in 2016. Really sad.

jimkabrhel

I think Chris Christie can win with the current system. It might not even be that close if the Dems nominate a John Kerry/Mitt Romney "robotic politician" type.

With the way he has been speaking this year, I don't think Christ Christie passes the GOP purity test, not any more. He might win a decent number of Democratic votes, if the Dem's are dissatisfied with their candidate, but I don't think Christie gets that far.

Yeah I think the Republican primary is Christie's main obstacle too.
#35 Posted by AFBrat77 (24087 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

This is a tacit admission that the GOP doesn't see itself winning in 2016. Really sad.

JML897

I think Chris Christie can win with the current system. It might not even be that close if the Dems nominate a John Kerry/Mitt Romney "robotic politician" type.

Hoping Hillary Clinton runs, its her last shot (age) for an 8 year run.

I did vote for Kerry over dubya, but I like Hillary as the frontrunner.

#36 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.MrPraline
Thou doth not simply tell the people of God to calm down on the marriage of sodomites and infanticide.

#37 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]If Republicans can't get elected they could always join the Democratic party and run on practically the same policies. Just calm down on gay marriage and abortion a bit.-Sun_Tzu-

Thou doth not simply tell the people of God to calm down on the marriage of sodomites and infanticide.

Sorry :{ On Romneycare then?
#38 Posted by comp_atkins (31278 posts) -
it's 2013, not 1805.. i think we can handle managing a straight popular vote at this point... and can we move election day to the weekend please? there's really no need for it being on a tuesday anymore.
#39 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
it's 2013, not 1805.. i think we can handle managing a straight popular vote at this point... and can we move election day to the weekend please? there's really no need for it being on a tuesday anymore.comp_atkins
Or simply have "election day" be a two week period that has early voting access to everyone with an abundance of polling places so people don't have to wait in line for hours.
#40 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -
Pathetic.
#41 Posted by comp_atkins (31278 posts) -
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]it's 2013, not 1805.. i think we can handle managing a straight popular vote at this point... and can we move election day to the weekend please? there's really no need for it being on a tuesday anymore.nocoolnamejim
Or simply have "election day" be a two week period that has early voting access to everyone with an abundance of polling places so people don't have to wait in line for hours.

we don't want logical solutions here..
#42 Posted by monkeytoes61 (8337 posts) -
Maybe if they weren't busy alienating every non 50+ white male American in this country, they could win an election.
#43 Posted by LordQuorthon (5289 posts) -

Isn't it easier to just stop being the party that hates brown/black people, single women and homosexuals? It doesn't even have to be for real, at least not from the get go. Just fake it for a few years and it will come naturally with time.

#44 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

The electoral college system is outdated and stupid. And I'm all in favor of having a mixed voting system between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

#45 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

Isn't it easier to just stop being the party that hates brown/black people, single women and homosexuals? It doesn't even have to be for real, at least not from the get go. Just fake it for a few years and it will come naturally with time.

LordQuorthon

The republican party doesn't hate any of those groups....how many republicans do you actually know? Or were you just generalizing?

#46 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

The electoral college system is outdated and stupid. And I'm all in favor of having a mixed voting system between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

ShadowMoses900

What exactly do you have in mind?

#47 Posted by Aljosa23 (24760 posts) -

haha, so funny to see how transparent the GOP is.

#48 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -

The electoral college system is outdated and stupid. And I'm all in favor of having a mixed voting system between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

ShadowMoses900
Mixed voting system? How would that work?