Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012

So yea, they are redistricting and messing with the electoral college to make Obama Lose....

Basically this is scarey.... and its perfectly legal :(

Yes is all a conspiracy. Don't forget its all George Bush's fault.

Meanwhile the Democrats just lost a seat thats been hardcore democratic since the 1920s.

Unfortunately....

This is the way politics is. We almost NEED the zombies in order to set this straight.

State redistricting is nothing new for Democrats or Republicans.

God, what a new and unheard of travesty. It's like politicians....seek...advantage... We need a name for this brand new form of corruption. Maybe jerry something, because that is an untrustworthy name. How about Gerrymandering?

Bromsy wrote:How about Gerrymandering?

No no no that's to weird. Garymandering?

EDIT: Wait. Let me get this straight. People regularly complain that the winner take all system of the Electoral college often causes the presidential election not to reflect the popular vote. A system where a state's electoral votes are granted individually, would actually better reflect the popular vote than the winner takes all system, and we're whining about it? I sense some selective outrage in this thread.

That is representative democracy right there in action.

Regardless of how far the Electoral College is placed away from the hands of actual voters, it nonetheless represents a part of the way Americans have selected their leaders.

It's not redistricting, it's splitting the electoral vote in the state:

Whoever wins the popular vote in each congressional district gets 1 vote for that district.

Whoever wins the state popular vote overall gets 2 votes (for the senators).

This type of districting was popular with liberals when it was suggested for the benefits of the Democrat party.

But that's politics for you.

kronk wrote:State redistricting is nothing new for Democrats or Republicans.

On such a coordinated national scale it would be new, but I doubt this is going to be a reality.

LordofHats wrote:

Bromsy wrote:How about Gerrymandering?

No no no that's to weird. Garymandering?

EDIT: Wait. Let me get this straight. People regularly complain that the winner take all system of the Electoral college often causes the presidential election not to reflect the popular vote. A system where a state's electoral votes are granted individually, would actually better reflect the popular vote than the winner takes all system, and we're whining about it? I sense some selective outrage in this thread.

Oh, the electoral college rules are also in need of revision.

But the Gerrymandering is a real issue which causes a party to really keep a tighter hold of a state even when it starts to lose or lessen its majority. In many ways it's actually LESS representative-- sure you might get one or two dem representatives, but then you get dozens of republican ones in exchange as they're given smaller constituencies.

Or vice versa depending on the state, I'm just referring to the situation in Texas, where they practically brag about doing this.

biccat wrote:Whoever wins the popular vote in each congressional district gets 1 vote for that district.

Whoever wins the state popular vote overall gets 2 votes (for the senators).

Huh. I suppose I should have read past the first sentence. I figured it was another state going through gerrymandering like Texas did a while back, and I'm beyond caring about.

I like the sound of this system much better than our current system of winner takes all, but this would magnify the effects of gerrymandering...

Melissia wrote:Or vice versa depending on the state, I'm just referring to the situation in Texas, where they practically brag about doing this.

I'm just pointing out the silliness of it. A system where electoral votes are issue not as winner take all but based on the district is more 'representative' than winner takes all. In winner takes all, everyone who voted for the other guy essentially shouldn't have even bothered voting. This system actually produces a more representative outcome from the voter base to the college.

Forgive me if I think the Dems winning all 53 votes in california every election is stupid compared to the actual popular vote of the state. In 2008 it was close to a 1/3 split, but you'd never be able to tell in winner takes all.

I actually see many potential pitfalls in this system... well okay one, primarily being that candidates will have less incentive to appeal to a broader voter base. I don't think the idea is flawless (nor do I think the electoral college is without fault), but people always hark on about how the electoral college sucks and doesn't represent actual popular vote, and a system that will be more representative is lambasted because poor Obama happens to be the sap potentially getting hosed? Especially since this really isn't party specific. It can turn out helping the Dems too.

This kind of reform would also be less controversial if the entire election wasn't a winner-take-all issue, but it is

Melissia wrote:This kind of reform would also be less controversial if the entire election wasn't a winner-take-all issue, but it is

How would it be any different than winner take all though? I'm not following you here. Are you saying a non-winner take all would be along the lines of the winner gets the Presidency and the second place is Vice President situation?

kronk wrote:

Melissia wrote:This kind of reform would also be less controversial if the entire election wasn't a winner-take-all issue, but it is

How would it be any different than winner take all though? I'm not following you here. Are you saying a non-winner take all would be along the lines of the winner gets the Presidency and the second place is Vice President situation?

Or cabinet appointments, or other forms of compromise.

But I was actually mostly musing on the very fact that it IS hard to make it not winner-take-all, especially in this no-compromise political culture the tea party extremists have put us in.

I follow you. Not sure what you could do though. You either win or you're first loser...

Melissia wrote:especially in this no-compromise political culture the tea party extremists have put us in.

I think we've been there before them, but that's a topic for another thread.

When I say winner takes all, I refer to the fact that the electoral seats of a state all go to whoever accumulated the most votes in that state. The 2008 election was a lot closer than the electoral college outlook made it appear. Obama still won, but there have been several cases where a candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. I think situations like that would be less likely to occur if winner takes all wasn't how the electoral college made its decisions.

It also might increase voter activity. Right now, if you vote for a candidate who loses, your vote is essentially meaningless because no matter how many people voted for McCain, as long as Obama got more votes in a state he got all the EC votes. This is one of the reason voter turn out can be low. People feel that their votes don't matter. In the current system, they honestly kind of don't (so long as the other guy has more).

We could just kill everyone in Pennsylvania.

Chowderhead wrote:We could just kill everyone in Pennsylvania.

Hot damn now were getting somewhere.

kronk wrote:State redistricting is nothing new for Democrats or Republicans.

Yeah, re-districting caused me to be zoned for a public school that doesn't do AP or Honors classes! What makes it even worse is, where our house is, we are just about 1 mile away from where the next zone is, which is zoned for a relatively good public school...how sucky is that?

Needless to say, I am a little bit bitter in my attitude towards politicians.

_Tim?

Well, I'm talking about congressional redistricting, not school redistricting...

But that sucks, _Tim.

Ahtman wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:We could just kill everyone in Pennsylvania.

Hot damn now were getting somewhere.

I mean, I don't think anyone would mind. Sure, there's a lot of old buildings there, but we can just move them to Maryland or something.

Chowderhead wrote:I mean, I don't think anyone would mind. Sure, there's a lot of old buildings there, but we can just move them to Maryland or something.

Maryland sucks. I want to be moved to Fiji

LordofHats wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:I mean, I don't think anyone would mind. Sure, there's a lot of old buildings there, but we can just move them to Maryland or something.

Maryland sucks. I want to be moved to Fiji

That works too, I guess. Although the climate might not bode well with all the actors in historical costumes.

I'm fairly certain that Ben Franklin didn't wear Shorts and a half opened Hawaiian shirt.

4 more years of obama folks.

remilia_scarlet wrote:4 more years of obama folks.

remilia_scarlet wrote:4 more years of obama folks.

Whatever you're smoking I want some.

Troy wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:4 more years of obama folks.

Whatever you're smoking I want some.

We have gak Republican Candidates, and shittier Democrats. Obama's the best of a bad situation.

Chowderhead wrote:

Troy wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:4 more years of obama folks.

Whatever you're smoking I want some.

We have gak Republican Candidates, and shittier Democrats. Obama's the best of a bad situation.

...er....no. He's one of the worst of a poor situation.

Troy wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Troy wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:4 more years of obama folks.

Whatever you're smoking I want some.

We have gak Republican Candidates, and shittier Democrats. Obama's the best of a bad situation.

...er....no. He's one of the worst of a poor situation.

Oh really? Then who do you suggest is a better candidate? A woman who thinks that the census is for rounding up Japanese and putting them into interment camps, a hypocrite who talks soley in bs rhetoric, a man who wants to re-write the constitution and do away with the Minimum wage, or Ron fething Paul?