08-16-2007, 07:42 AM | #1 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Republican's strategy to take the white house in 08
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 08:00 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Illinois is one of the better examples of this issue.
75% of the population lives in chicago, an ultra liberal, majority democrat area. How is it fair representation that the 80% of the state, which only has 25% of the population is basically ignored because a huge population base resides in a certain locale of the state?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
08-16-2007, 08:15 AM | #3 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Near & There
|
This is not a new issue -
Colorado More It was ultimately voted down by CO voters - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...lectoral_x.htm |
08-16-2007, 08:34 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
There is another approach that is gaining momentum that would require a state to cast all its electoral votes for the candidate with the largest NATIONAL popular vote.
It get around a Constitutional amendment to end the electoral college (which has failed on several recent occasions) by having the states sign interstate compacts. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Its an interesting approach.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
08-16-2007, 08:41 AM | #6 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
08-16-2007, 09:42 AM | #8 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
I do not think election fraud is o.k. When votes are counted, however, it would be foolish not to have your party represented in the counting room. What happened in Florida was not proven to be election fraud. However, Gore was foolish to think he would get any "homer" calls in Florida. While on the other hand Bush would do whatever he could within the law to make sure his brother won the election. Kennedy "stole" a presidential election. The precedence was not started with Bush. Voting "irregularities" happen in every national election and in every Chicago election (I am from the state of Illinois and followed Chicago politics with great interest, perhaps that is why I am so, so cynical).
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
08-16-2007, 10:56 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
It's like with Karl Rove. The man is extremely talented at getting elected, and extremely deficient at governing. Getting elected takes vastly different skills than governing. I'd like to redesign the system so that the best person for the job gets the job. The world-view you propone, ace, will inevitably lead to some of the WORST people getting the job (as, I note, is currently the case). |
|
08-16-2007, 11:12 AM | #12 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
I feel like it should remain the way it is. The president is a representative of the individual States, not neccissarily the citizens of the United States. Breaking the electors up like this really brings out the negatives in a democracy, instead of a constitutional republic in which the United States was founded.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
08-16-2007, 11:20 AM | #13 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 01:18 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
At least in this situation, what they tried to do was in the open. Its kinda like my uncle used to say: Every so often you have to ask the prettiest girl around for a kiss, you never know when she might say yes. California's electoral votes certainly look pretty.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 08-16-2007 at 01:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
08-16-2007, 01:29 PM | #15 (permalink) | |
Devoted
Donor
Location: New England
|
Quote:
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry. |
|
08-16-2007, 01:36 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Greenwood, Arkansas
|
This seems to differ only in degree and not in kind to what Maine and Nebraska already do.
What is important to all candidates is that they know the rules of the game before the election is held--enough in advance to plan for how it will be done. I thought the argument that Gore won the popular vote and therefore was cheated was ridiculous on its face, as neither candidate were out to win the popular vote. Bush didn't try to lose in California by a narrow margin, as Gore didn't spend much if any money in Texas to try to grab some additional votes in that state. If a candidate is going to lose a state, it doesn't matter now if it's 70-30 or 55-45; resources can be allocated in the states where there is a fighting chance. In theory, I like the idea of congressional districts each having a vote, but there is one major problem with it. Voter fraud claims would multiply greatly--it's harder to steal an election in an entire state, and even if there is fraud in one area of the state, it may not effect the entire slate of electors.
__________________
AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one. |
08-16-2007, 01:50 PM | #18 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
P.S. - Have you read the quotes under my posts?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
||
08-16-2007, 02:49 PM | #19 (permalink) |
Thank You Jesus
Location: Twilight Zone
|
If the people of California vote to make this a law, so be it. It is their state.
And if the measure goes national so be it also, I think the dems would be in for a big suprise, New York , Jersey and other states that the dems count on would change the whole aspect of the vote, because now the cities would no longer take the whole state.
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him? |
08-16-2007, 03:06 PM | #20 (permalink) |
Baltimoron
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
|
I love the idea of parceling electoral-college votes.
I live in a state (Maryland) where the political destiny is determined by three of 24 jurisdictions (Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and Baltimore City) that overwhelmingly lean to one party while the rest of the state is much closer to 50-50. It would be much nicer if, say, the electoral votes were split up by congressional district, with the winner in each getting that vote, and then the two that represent the senators go to the statewide winner.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun |
08-16-2007, 04:41 PM | #22 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2007, 05:07 PM | #23 (permalink) |
immoral minority
Location: Back in Ohio
|
I think it should be broken down by the percentage of votes. If candidate A gets 52%, candidate B gets 30% and candidate C gets 18%, the winner should get 52% of the electrorial votes + 2, the second place place person should get around30% and the third place person should get around 18%. But make it nationwide.
Or just make it a straight election with no electroial college, but rules that state that the candidates have to travel to every state and have to spend 20% of the time in rural counties. |
08-16-2007, 05:23 PM | #24 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
08-16-2007, 05:28 PM | #25 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Willravel; 08-16-2007 at 05:29 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
09-16-2007, 08:42 PM | #27 (permalink) | ||
Insane
Location: Orlando, Florida
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-19-2007, 12:59 PM | #28 (permalink) |
Tilted
|
It is transparent partisan crap to award California's electoral votes by congressional district while letting Texas and other award their red votes winner-take-all. But it would still be a problem even this method were adopted by all states.
First of all, it doesn't solve the problem of all votes being equal. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the 40% of Californians who will vote GOP in 2008 but not get a single electoral vote (note that I am quite confident that the ballot proposal will fail miserably in June). But in a system that awards electors by congressional district, my progressive vote will be lost because I live in a heavily gerrymandered GOP district. Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't solve the problem of the Electoral College itself. It's true that if all states adopted the congressional district method the state-by-state results would more closely reflect the electoral votes within the respective states, but the popular will would still be thwarted. That's because all states get a number of electoral votes equal to the number of their congressional districts PLUS TWO! This grotesquely favors the small states, whose "bonus points" often equal or exceed their number of congressional districts. On benign, magnanimous days I can kinda, sorta see an argument for unequal representation in one house of congress, but not for the selection of the president. The only way to ensure one-person-one-vote representation is to eliminate the Electoral College entirely and choose the president by popular vote. Since that would require a constitutional amendment and therefore be virtually impossible, I support the proposed agreement between the states totalling 270 electors mentioned above by DC_DUX. By the way, that proposal will be on the same California ballot as the dirty tricks GOP proposal. |
09-29-2007, 06:55 AM | #29 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
It appears that this attempt by a few republicans to alter the electoral process in California has failed, or at the very least, is teetering on the brink.
Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
Tags |
house, republican, strategy, white |
|
|