dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Seems some in Virginia want to push for this...although it appears the governor and others are against it. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/politics/electoral-college/?hpt=po_c1 Washington (CNN) -- If at first you don't succeed, try to change the rules. A proposal under consideration in Virginia's Republican-led state Legislature would change how the commonwealth allocates its 13 electoral votes in the wake of Democratic President Barack Obama's re-election last November. Obama won the popular vote in the crucial battleground state to claim all 13 electoral votes, even though GOP challenger Mitt Romney beat him in seven of the 11 congressional districts. Under the proposed alternative system, electoral votes would get divvied up by congressional districts won. In addition, Virginia's two other electoral votes -- one for each U.S. Senate seat -- would go to the candidate who won the most congressional districts. If the district-based system had been in effect in Virginia last year, Romney would have gotten nine electoral votes to four for Obama. .... Overall in Virginia, Obama got 51% of the total vote -- more than 1.97 million -- compared to Romney's 1.82 million for 47% of the total. .... "It seems to me we ought to be focused on connecting with voters and bringing them into our party versus trying to change the game," Curry said. .... "I think it is a state issue, but personally I'm pretty intrigued by it," [Priebus] told reporters Friday. ..... Other GOP-controlled state legislatures reportedly contemplating changes to their electoral vote allocation include Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Seems some in Virginia want to push for this...although it appears the governor and others are against it. http://www.cnn.com/2...lege/?hpt=po_c1 Washington (CNN) -- If at first you don't succeed, try to change the rules. A proposal under consideration in Virginia's Republican-led state Legislature would change how the commonwealth allocates its 13 electoral votes in the wake of Democratic President Barack Obama's re-election last November. Obama won the popular vote in the crucial battleground state to claim all 13 electoral votes, even though GOP challenger Mitt Romney beat him in seven of the 11 congressional districts. Under the proposed alternative system, electoral votes would get divvied up by congressional districts won. In addition, Virginia's two other electoral votes -- one for each U.S. Senate seat -- would go to the candidate who won the most congressional districts. If the district-based system had been in effect in Virginia last year, Romney would have gotten nine electoral votes to four for Obama. .... Overall in Virginia, Obama got 51% of the total vote -- more than 1.97 million -- compared to Romney's 1.82 million for 47% of the total. .... "It seems to me we ought to be focused on connecting with voters and bringing them into our party versus trying to change the game," Curry said. .... "I think it is a state issue, but personally I'm pretty intrigued by it," [Priebus] told reporters Friday. ..... Other GOP-controlled state legislatures reportedly contemplating changes to their electoral vote allocation include Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. You're sort of a guy that loves the federal government and looks down on the states as far as their rights go, so maybe we should have a federal law allowing only federal taxpayers to vote in elections. Watcha think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Its a bad idea, almost as bad as the liberal's initiative called the “National Popular Vote Compact”, that the dems (and media) have been pushing for almost 10 years now. Leave the Electoral college as it is. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) You're sort of a guy that loves the federal government and looks down on the states as far as their rights go, so maybe we should have a federal law allowing only federal taxpayers to vote in elections. Watcha think? Sounds like something that would violate most state constitutions and something SCOTUS would probably find a way to overrule on a federal level if it was argued right. In any event, I know the difference between not hating the federal government and loving it is hard to see for some, but I assure you I do not love the federal government. In any event, am I to assume you would favor this legislation? Sort of seems like admitting the GOP can't win the popular vote ... ever again. Its a bad idea, almost as bad as the liberal's initiative called the “National Popular Vote Compact”, that the dems (and media) have been pushing for almost 10 years now. Leave the Electoral college as it is. . I agree that it works well enough as is....but to suggest a national popular vote is a worse idea than just splitting the electoral vote in states where GOP controls the legislature and Dems can win, while not doing it in places like Texas...well...clearly this is a worse idea. Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) I agree that it works well enough as is....but to suggest a national popular vote is a worse idea than just splitting the electoral vote in states where GOP controls the legislature and Dems can win, while not doing it in places like Texas...well...clearly this is a worse idea. “Rigging” the electoral system only is bad when it hurts Democrats As things stand now, the Electoral College favors Democrats because they are all but guaranteed to win a small number of large winner take all states, such as California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, plus a coalition of hopelessly blue states. Democrats start off close to victory because of winner-take-all voting in those states, even if they win those states by a small margin in each state. The system currently is “rigged” to favor Democrats, if you want to look at it that way. So Republicans in some states have come up with a perfectly constitutional alternative which already is used in Maine and Nebraska, awarding electoral college votes by congressional district. This would help Republicans in several states. It’s perfectly constitutional because states get to decide how to award electoral votes. The possibility that this may help Republicans has Larry Sabato screaming Stop Thief: As we suspected, it would permit a GOP nominee to capture the White House even while losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not a relatively small Electoral College “misfire” on the order of 1888 or 2000. Instead, it is a corrupt and cynical maneuver to frustrate popular will and put a heavy thumb — the whole hand, in fact — on the scale for future Republican candidates. We do not play presidential politics with a golf handicap awarded to the weaker side. Republicans face a choice that can best be characterized by personalizing it. A healthy, optimistic party is Reaganesque, convinced that it can win the future by embracing it, and by making a positive case for its philosophy and candidates to all Americans. A party in decline is Nixonian and fears the future; it sees enemies everywhere, feels overwhelmed by electoral trends, and thinks it can win only by cheating, by subverting the system and stacking the deck in its favor. Whose presidency was more successful, Reagan’s or Nixon’s? Which man made the Republican brand more appealing? Sorry, but that argument doesn’t cut it. Award by congressional district is in use in two states, has been proposed many times before elsewhere, and still requires presidential candidates to win elections in congressional districts. It may favor Republicans, or it may not, depending on the state and the presidential candidate. Awarding electoral votes by district may have a positive impact of forcing candidates to campaign outside the large cities and bring a more geographically diverse electorate into the voting booth for them. To equate it to cheating is constitutionally ignorant. I also reject the methodology of looking back at the last election in which the system was not in place and forecasting future results. The fact is we don’t know what the results would have been if the candidates had to alter their campaign strategies under a district-based formula. While awarding electors by congressional district may favor Republicans now in some states, it may favor Democrats in the future, just as the winner take all favors Democrats now. To take a temporal view and declare it “cheating” shows that the accuser is politicizing the issue just as much as the alleged cheaters. Edited January 28, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) lol B-Man producing a stupid article on cue. If you think the citizens of Virginia would honestly think it would comply with basic fairness principles that in their state last year if Obama could win the majority of votes and come away a big electoral loser to Romney as a result of a structure put in place by a Republican legislature, then you can't imagine a Virginian thinking in nonpartisan terms. Whatever party you are, there has to be at least some legitimacy to our elections (something the Governor probably thought about before publicly saying he doesn't support this)...and it's already somewhat low for a variety of reasons to people on either side of the political spectrum. Certainly a national popular vote intuitive carries more legitimacy than that plan....and some would argue even more so than the current system although we need not discuss that as I'm not entirely convinced I've heard some good arguments for both... Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 lol B-Man producing a stupid article on cue. If you think the citizens of Virginia would honestly think it would comply with basic fairness principles that in their state last year if Obama could win the majority of votes and come away a big electoral loser to Romney as a result of a structure put in place by a Republican legislature, then you can't imagine a Virginian thinking in nonpartisan terms. Whatever party you are, there has to be at least some legitimacy to our elections (something the Governor probably thought about before publicly saying he doesn't support this)...and it's already somewhat low for a variety of reasons to people on either side of the political spectrum. Certainly a national popular vote intuitive carries more legitimacy than that plan....and some would argue even more so than the current system although we need not discuss that as I'm not entirely convinced I've heard some good arguments for both... Why do you hate individual state cultures so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Why do you hate individual state cultures so much? Care to elaborate on how that post makes you think I hate state cultures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Care to elaborate on how that post makes you think I hate state cultures? Your wholesale opposition to the ways in which they may choose to represent themselves politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) lol B-Man producing a stupid article on cue. If you think the citizens of Virginia would honestly think it would comply with basic fairness principles that in their state last year if Obama could win the majority of votes and come away a big electoral loser to Romney as a result of a structure put in place by a Republican legislature, then you can't imagine a Virginian thinking in nonpartisan terms. You really come across as disorganized and childish. You start a thread on a message board about an ill-conceived legislation to "get around" the electoral college, not just in Virginia, but other states. I supply an article from a well-known Law professor's blog, and instead of any reasoned response, we get your "that was stupid" cliche. You are simply not worth the effort to respond to, you cannot grasp other people's viewpoints and offer little to no facts in your attempts. For anyone else interested in the subject, I would offer this. Liberals who have long hated the Electoral College and want it abolished in favor of direct popular vote are suddenly . . . in love with the EC just as it is. Why? Because noises by some solid blue states to follow the Maine and Nebraska model of apportioning electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all might tilt the playing field towards Republicans. I love the situational ethics of today’s liberals. Right before the 2000 election, when it appeared possible that George W. Bush might win the popular vote but lose the EC to Gore, there were a series of preemptive articles arguing why an EC result against the popular vote result should be respected. Then, when the opposite happened. . . Well, it was rather embarrassing to see the Left turn on a dime and return to their argument from the 1970s that the EC needed to be junked. More recently, the Left has been arguing for a compact among states whereby states would pledge to cast their EC votes for the popular vote winner regardless of how their state votes, apparently afraid that the Bush 2000 scenario might repeat itself. But now with some Republicans agitating for a similar scheme that would surely hurt Democrats’ current geographic EC advantage, the Left is saying, “No—wait, we like the EC just fine the way it is.” Well, I personally disagree with the GOP proposals, and I hope that they do not go any further. They ARE, however, quite legal, but the hypocrisy by those on the left in their reaction to these proposals, should serve us all as a reminder that ANY effort to change the way our President is elected, should be viewed as suspect. . Edited January 28, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Your wholesale opposition to the ways in which they may choose to represent themselves politically. Well let's look at the fact that this comes right after the 2012 election where Obama won 51% of the vote, and under this plan produced by a Republican faction in the state legislature he would have been crushed in electoral votes. So if you were to ask "them"...them being the people of Virginia who voted for President if they would choose to represent themselves this way politically do you think they would say yes...that actually produces the outcome that the majority of us wanted? Does this more likely resemble the wishes of the voting public of Virginia or the wishes of a faction in power in the legislature? It's hardly an attack on state culture to do this simple math.... Well, I personally disagree with the GOP proposals, and I hope that they do not go any further. They ARE, however, quite legal, but the hypocrisy by those on the left in their reaction to these proposals, should serve us all as a reminder that ANY effort to change the way our President is elected, should be viewed as suspect. This I can agree with. As per the popular vote v. electoral college...independent of party loyalty there are good arguments for both. As to why the article is stupid, it's b/c it fails to recognize the GOP idea as reported is to do this a select few states, no talk of implement nation wide reform. So this whole "may or may not" stuff is just not relevant. Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 As pointed out, a couple of states already use this although I think they give the two "extra" votes to the popular vote winner; not the winner of both districts (not sure). It is already the decision of each state, it's just that 48 states decide to be winner take all. It really shouldn't be a national debate at all. This is a good idea or bad idea for Virginia and Virginia alone. It is no business of anyone living in NY or Kentucky. Unfortunately I think no matter what you do you're going to have problems. You think districts are gerry-mandered now? Lay this electoral tie-in to them and watch what happens. I'm not a huge fan of winner take all either because so many states have populations with large political differences. Although less so now, NY City and Upstate are like two different states politically. Upstate Republicans basically have no say at all in selecting a president. No system is perfect but any system ought to have its roots in the constitution which includes the electoral college for a reason. A national popular vote is the worst possible idea for a whole slew of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I recall the same debates back in 2000 and 2004. Of course back then it was considered much more "progressive" thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Well let's look at the fact that this comes right after the 2012 election where Obama won 51% of the vote, and under this plan produced by a Republican faction in the state legislature he would have been crushed in electoral votes. So if you were to ask "them"...them being the people of Virginia who voted for President if they would choose to represent themselves this way politically do you think they would say yes...that actually produces the outcome that the majority of us wanted? Does this more likely resemble the wishes of the voting public of Virginia or the wishes of a faction in power in the legislature? It's hardly an attack on state culture to do this simple math.... State legislatures and state law aren't static. If the electorate doesn't like the reforms their legislators are inacting, they can replace them or put forth ballot initiatives. These changes are much easier to enact at the state and local level. This I can agree with. As per the popular vote v. electoral college...independent of party loyalty there are good arguments for both. As to why the article is stupid, it's b/c it fails to recognize the GOP idea as reported is to do this a select few states, no talk of implement nation wide reform. So this whole "may or may not" stuff is just not relevant. Jesus Christ... IT'S BECAUSE HOW ELECTORAL VOTES ARE SUBMITTED IS A STATE ISSUE, NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE, AND THAT IS HOW IT WAS INTENDED. I repeat: why do you hate the individual cultures of the several states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Jesus Christ... IT'S BECAUSE HOW ELECTORAL VOTES ARE SUBMITTED IS A STATE ISSUE, NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE, AND THAT IS HOW IT WAS INTENDED. I repeat: why do you hate the individual cultures of the several states? That doesn't take away the reason why the article is bad. It admits at the top that it will would help the GOP in several states, all the states that it controls but lost in Presidential race, in other words the ones there is talk about doing this in. Then later on the he does this whole "it may or may not help depending on the state"...well we know the states, and it would, there is not talk in Texas of doing this etc... This comment is directed at my criticism toward the article, my friend Tasker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 That doesn't take away the reason why the article is bad. It admits at the top that it will would help the GOP in several states, all the states that it controls but lost in Presidential race, in other words the ones there is talk about doing this in. Then later on the he does this whole "it may or may not help depending on the state"...well we know the states, and it would, there is not talk in Texas of doing this etc... This comment is directed at my criticism toward the article, my friend Tasker... If your only problem was with how the article was written, then why did you spend most of your words criticizing the policy shifts of several states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) If your only problem was with how the article was written, then why did you spend most of your words criticizing the policy shifts of several states? well I've been criticizing both and mainly the Virginia proposal...the other states come in to illustrate that this idea follows the election and circulates after the national GOP mee3t up naming certain blue states as targets...I mean I may never convince you but it's pretty clear it isn't about state culture but rather national GOP strategy infiltrating existing state structures. Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 well I've been criticizing both and mainly the Virginia proposal...the other states come in to illustrate that this idea follows the election and circulates after the national GOP mee3t up naming certain blue states as targets...I mean I may never convince you but it's pretty clear it isn't about state culture but rather national GOP strategy infiltrating existing state structures. If the individual states feel that this system would better represent their views, and that the prior method marginalized the majority of their state congressional districts then they are doing the right thing. If the electorate feels this isn't the case, then they can reject it. Do you live in Virginia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 If the individual states feel that this system would better represent their views, and that the prior method marginalized the majority of their state congressional districts then they are doing the right thing. If the electorate feels this isn't the case, then they can reject it. Do you live in Virginia? Seeing as we know that more people in Virginia voted for Obama than Romney, I think it's fair to say that most people would reject a system that would have awarded Romney the lions share of electoral votes. It's all moot anyway bot the Governor and the next in line GOP candidate reject it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Seeing as we know that more people in Virginia voted for Obama than Romney, I think it's fair to say that most people would reject a system that would have awarded Romney the lions share of electoral votes. It's all moot anyway bot the Governor and the next in line GOP candidate reject it... I notice that you changed my wording in order to create a strawman. Stop doing that. What I said was that they seem to feel that the electoral outcome marginalized the majority of their state congressional districts. It seems that they are moving towards a republican format to rectify the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 It seems funny to me that states like Ohio go blue. If not for Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati the entire state is red. They need to change this. It forces representation to only focus on Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus and Cincinnati. The entire state is much much different then people believe, and it is a very redneck type place outside of the cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 It seems funny to me that states like Ohio go blue. If not for Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati the entire state is red. They need to change this. It forces representation to only focus on Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus and Cincinnati. The entire state is much much different then people believe, and it is a very redneck type place outside of the cities. like New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 29, 2013 Author Share Posted January 29, 2013 Reminds me of Carville saying Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between...hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts