- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
No different than gerrymandering, IMO. Shame on them, and shame on any other group of politicians who have ever tried to manipulate results by playing the system.
That said, this isn't an idea that the GOP can take full credit for.
Both political parties gerrymander and do other things that I don't approve of (I was very happy when my state took redistricting away from the legislature), but I think that this is just a whole, shameless new level. There's no justification for it, and trying to play the system for the presidency is even worse, imho.
Really, I try to give Republicans some benefit of the doubt and treat them in good faith, but it is hard sometimes. In Pennsylvania, a blue state with large red enclaves, Republicans are trying to give electoral votes by district. In Nebraska, where this is in effect that Obama won one district last election, the Republicans are trying to turn the state to a winner take all system. It seems clear to me that the Republicans, in both states, are just trying to change the rules to help themselves win, and I see this as a fundamentally unfair and malicious thing to do. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the perspective of anyone who thinks this is totally legitimate and ok.
| Missouri News Horizon
Pennsylvania ponders Electoral College revamp - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com
Republicans have known for a while now that a party of white, upper middle and upper class conservative people - mostly male and shrinking in demographics cannot long hold onto the majority in the USA. So they have to come up with ways to still win public elections with a minority of potential voters. This is but one manifestation of it.
I hope they don't. It seems like this could easily backfire on Republicans.
Republicans have known for a while now that a party of white, upper middle and upper class conservative people - mostly male and shrinking in demographics cannot long hold onto the majority in the USA. So they have to come up with ways to still win public elections with a minority of potential voters. This is but one manifestation of it.
appealing to self sufficiency, less federal government and less dependency is a white value?
the Maine/Nebraska system isn't bad... and lots of folks, not just Republicans, think it's a lot more fair than a winner-take-all system.
i'm not sure why this is being portrayed as "gaming the system" though... it's really not.... but I understand why it's being sold that way, but partisanship should not be an alternative to thinking.
the winner take all system nullifies the votes of the minorities... if 51% vote one way, the other 49% are simply SOL.
this Maine /Nebraska system simply allows for the minority to have a portion of the voice in federal elections.
Republicans in blue states really like the idea... and Democrats in red states do too.
anywhere that you find an minority, they will like the idea of getting a say in matters...
Really, I try to give Republicans some benefit of the doubt and treat them in good faith, but it is hard sometimes. In Pennsylvania, a blue state with large red enclaves, Republicans are trying to give electoral votes by district. In Nebraska, where this is in effect that Obama won one district last election, the Republicans are trying to turn the state to a winner take all system. It seems clear to me that the Republicans, in both states, are just trying to change the rules to help themselves win, and I see this as a fundamentally unfair and malicious thing to do. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the perspective of anyone who thinks this is totally legitimate and ok.
| Missouri News Horizon
Pennsylvania ponders Electoral College revamp - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com
I would like the proposed system better if it looked at dividing the electoral college votes in relation to the way the entire state voted rather than a district which can be gerrymandered.
How do you see it doing that?
Just for the record. The Democrats don't have a problem with Proportional Representation. They use it also. Where it's to their advantage they will suggest it. This is just one link.
Delegates and the Democrats
It makes things far more complicated when it comes to elections and that's something I'm against whoever it is suggesting it.
Really, I try to give Republicans some benefit of the doubt and treat them in good faith, but it is hard sometimes. In Pennsylvania, a blue state with large red enclaves, Republicans are trying to give electoral votes by district. In Nebraska, where this is in effect that Obama won one district last election, the Republicans are trying to turn the state to a winner take all system. It seems clear to me that the Republicans, in both states, are just trying to change the rules to help themselves win, and I see this as a fundamentally unfair and malicious thing to do.
To compare the division of a states delegates to a closed party convention based on a primary vote within a party to the electoral vote a state casts in the election of a President of all the American people is an intellectual fraud and disingenuous in the extreme. They are two very different things.
There are many examples. That was just the first I found. Will it make a bit of difference to you if you if I find a different example?
I will be more than happy to look at it.
. Perhaps he was reserving the right to comment on whether your second example would be any more relevant than your first.Not what I asked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?