Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, Nov 7, 2012.
Voter Fraud(I think he was going by the fact their was a few precincts that Romney got 0 votes(which I would assume would be heavily poor black/minority areas))
But does he explain 'how'?
One of my pet peeves is people who just can't admit when they're wrong.
Probably the funniest thing about his arguments for Ohio and Florida is that both state's elections are run by REPUBLICAN Secretaries of State. You would think that would have nudged thing in Romeny's favor, wouldn't you?
If you click on his site Barack O'Fraudo just click on the black states. lol
Speaking of great Republican ideas
Yeah, that's not rigging.
The states get to determine how Electoral Votes are given out. Three states give them out proportionally, not using winner-take-all. This is one of the proportional methods (can't remember if it's being used by those states, or if they do straight percentages). It gives each district the vote granted to it for each Representative. The two votes granted to the State for the senators is given through the winner-take-all method to represent the State's vote as a whole.
There's a good bit of support for methods like this because it breaks up the 'battleground' state situation, forcing candidates to focus on smaller, and more widespread, populations.
It also makes everywhere but Cincinnati and Columbus pointless. I am guessing all the cash thrown into the state every 4 years is a economic boom for the state. But hey it helps the Republicans
you're talking about the old way, right?
What do you mean old way?
Basically if you divide the electoral votes by district it means there is like 12-13 of 16 congressional districts in Ohio that their is absolutely no point for either party to campaign in(ie pour money into). Added negative about this if the Democrats put more efforts into closer districts, they might win a couple more congressional house seats
no, it means the opposite.
Instead of being able to win a state by just catering to a couple of the larger population centers, candidates will have to win the actual districts.
And in a state like California, where most of the districts are actually red, it means that the Republicans can count on a good number of EC votes from here. It also means the Dems can't just focus their money on the big liberal urban centers like SF and LA that pull the state just from their sheer population size. They'll have to put money into the smaller districts, which can make the Republican spending in the big cities more effective.
Basically, it makes both sides work harder. Which is a good thing.
Considering the red districts tend to have less population id rather it not go that way. Last thing I want is a bunch of rural low population areas ruling the election. And wouldnt gerrymandering be a problem?
I agree, I am no fan of the electoral college and think the winner of the popular vote should be the overall winner, but splitting it by congressional districts is even worse then the electoral college, it makes small rural areas have more power. I believe 1 vote should = 1 vote no matter where it comes from
except doing it be district brings it close to a popular vote.
I get really tired of these people with no conception of or respect for separation of church and state trying to legislate morality based on their personal interpretation of their religion.
You can believe whatever values you want, but don't expect me to live by them.
Because frankly, I think your values are poison.
No it doesn't, as Marvelo pointed out if you have states gerrymandering the districts you would have cases like Ohio where Obama won the popular vote there by a decent margin(100k) but would lose the electoral votes(12-6) by a large margin. How is that fair? it's basically telling people in Cleveland that your vote is not worth as much as somebody who lives in a small rural area.
I am guessing if we broke up the entire country by 1 vote for congressional district(and any left over electoral vote goes to the winner of the state) Romney would win, even though he had 4M less votes. In terms of Electoral College vs Popular Vote it has only failed on 4 occasions, I am guessing the Congressional district split would have even a less of a success rate
I do think this is going to causes unprecedented problems though.
In the past, people disagreed, but they agreed on certain truths. That's out the window now.
Now, I know, you have some people who say that someone's views on science are irrelevant, but when you have people who claim that homosexuality is a sin, who pass civil rights legislation... you have a civil rights problem.
When you have people who think the world is 9,000 year olds, and that dinosaurs and people coexisted, you're going to have academic legislation written by the uneducated / miseducated, you have an educational problem.
When you have people who deny climate change exists... when entire cities start getting taken out by super hurricanes, you have one hell of a problem.
So this is quite problematic.
I will not accept my legal equality being constrained because someone else has a primitive mentality. Not my problem.
Stupidity is one of the few things genuinely worthy of being ashamed of, and the fact that some wear it loudly and publicly like a badge of honor should horrify any American.
These rabble have been holding this country back for ages now.
Whoa now, careful, you might offend someone.
Again, not my problem.
I think "winner take all" is the only way to go.
Oh they are and it's more complicated than that. Taking the god out of religion doesn't make you any less creepier and zealot like.
I think popular vote is the way to go
Let 1 vote in San Fransisco = 1 vote in Columbus = 1 vote in some small rural town in Alabama.
As it stands now only 1 vote of the 3 I mentioned means anything