patrick.net

It is odd that Republicans would be for this measure. It is a bit more odd that Democrats would be against it, since the measure would move the state much closer to a 1 man 1 vote system for President - much closer to a popular election than exists now.

Colorado Democrats attempted to do this in 2004 and Colorado Republicans were opposed to it. So yes, their goal is to do this to blue states while keeping red states winner takes all, and obviously the Democrats goals are to do this to red states while keeping blue states (like PA) winner takes all.

It would "fatally wreck elections" in this country only to the degree that electoral votes are impacted by gerrymandered congressional districts. Get past that legitimate problem and it "fatally wrecks" nothing except for Federalism, which you're probably no fan of in the first place.

I don't believe that there are no differences between the parties. But this is in fact a great example of one case where there is not a difference in behavior: Both parties want to maintain control, and both are willing to take a course that is opposite of their general foundation to do so.

So what are your specific objections to a more representative allocation of the vote, other than who has control?

There's been a whole decade of Democrats fucking with the election system, can I tell you guys, "I told you fucking so!".

I warned them since 2000 this wouldn't end well. Republicans are just far more advanced at taking half backed Liberal hair brained ideas, and kicking it into over drive.

Liberals want to massage the vote, screw that, Republicans will futz with the electorate vote. They wont waste their time with massaging Rose Guthrey's, or Ben Goldsmith's in Golden Village Votes.

This is what you get, when you screw with something, that men much smarter than you created. I think they knew what happens, when you start making election results open for interpretation.

"So what are your specific objections to a more representative allocation of the vote, other than who has control?"

I have none at all, which is why we should elect presidents based on the POPULAR vote. If we had done this all along, Al Gore would have been elected president.

And let's not forget that we have a rigged primary system that basically lets the voters in just 3 states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) to pick the nominees of both parties while ignoring the remaining 47 states.

Where in the Constitution does it give states the right to split their electoral votes?

Also, splitting electoral votes might backfire one day because if you have a strong 3rd party candidate in the future, someone like another Ross Perot, no candidate will get the required 270 votes.

So you have no problem with the House of Reps. chooising the next president? I don't care if they choose a Dem or Republican, that is a scarry thought. Just think of all the backroom deals that will be made. Like attorney general Michele Bachmann or treasury secretary Maxine Waters. You don't think the congress critters will demand cabinet positions in exchange for their votes?

I thought only Maine currently did this.

The election system needs an upgrade in my opinion. I don't see why we couldn't do a popular vote. Hell, I bank and pay taxes online. Why can't I cast a vote online. One SSN, equals one vote. Keep the polls open for the poor people who don't have computers.

I don't want to hear any rants about what our founding fathers thought on voting either. They only believed land owning white males should be the voters.

shrekgrinch says

But abolishing the EC...that's amendment territory.

Well, that is probably never going to happen. The EC can be manipulated which would get rid of power.

shrekgrinch says

Yup, you don't want to hear about reality as it is. That pesky constitution!

Pretty sure he meant that he doesn't care what the founding fathers wanted - his interest is in improving the system.

I've got loads of concerns about evoting, though. Sounds great - and surely there's *some* way to do it right, but we haven't seen it yet. Paper trails can be faked but the mass of paper makes it harder to hide evidence and more likely that someone will notice. The lines of code that subtly alter votes and determine outcomes can delete themselves after doing their dirty work.

"Currently Maine (blue) and Nebraska (red) have it and you don't see them complaining about it, either."

Looks like you spoke too soon:

"Be it resolved that the Nebraska Republican Party will not support in any manner, financial or otherwise, any state senator who opposes the return of the state to the "winner-takes-all" electoral vote plan either by failing to vote for such in committee or on the floor of the legislature."

http://www.newnebraska.net/diary/3157/nebraska-gop-could-excommunicate-state-senators-who-oppose-electoral-college-takeover

What do you mean? The Nebraska Republican party is demanding a return to the winner take all system and is threateneing to destroy the career of any state senator who opposes it.

shrekgrinch says

I said the Obambi wasn't serious in getting Americans back to work...he just wants to appear to be doing it while also trying to blame the Reps for not doing so. $300 billion in a $15 Trillion economy supports my theory...that Obambi is just full of shit as I stated, for the reasons I stated.

What would you do to increase jobs? Please be specific and give ideas, not vague principles.

How do you create jobs? That is easy:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/cbo-tax-cuts-were-least-effective-stimulus-in-recovery-act.html

Notice that tax cuts are all the way at the bottom, hence they have the least stimulative effect.

shrekgrinch says

Why do you act like I am supposed to answer your bogus questions?

You criticize, but you have no ideas. Just pointing that out yet again. All you do is bitch, but you have no substance or facts or ideas, as always.

HousingWatcher says

What do you mean? The Nebraska Republican party is demanding a return to the winner take all system and is threateneing to destroy the career of any state senator who opposes it.

Yes, Obama won Omaha's district and got 1 more electoral vote than he would have under a winner-takes-all system. Not that he needed it.
I don't really like the electoral college or the winner-takes-all-by-state system, but its mischievous for some states to have it and others not. Maine and Nebraska are very unlikely to decide an election for obvious reasons, but it would be terribly unbalancing for this to happen in a big state.

HousingWatcher says

Where in the Constitution does it give states the right to split their electoral votes?

Article 2 section 1.

A basic highschool government class would have told you that.

Yes Gore did win the popular vote in 2000...

But in 1912, 1916, 1948,(1960 is debatable) 1992 and 1996 (all of which were democrats) the person that became president did not win the majority of the popular vote either. Heck Wilson one before receiving only 40% of the vote.

Technically it's the states that actually vote not people.

The argument really is if we should have a winner take all concept within the states. We've seen landslides in electoral votes but that didn't exactly mean a landslide in the popular vote (look at 1980)

In Mass we are debating simply following the popular vote and giving our ev's by default..personally I think that's stupid.

Personally I would recommend the following:

1) The primary season should be shortened. No more of this 6 to 6 1/2 month drag out. Make it one to two months. Go in order of least to most (so that way it increases equity to a point) so territories first one week..last week could be CA, TX, NYC etc or simply regionalize it for a month or so by time zone.

2) Presidency should be changed with an amendment to one six year term. It costs us too much to have a president run for reelection

3) Extend the number of representatives by 100 and increase the term from two years to three. No incoming freshmen reps will be able to do anything because one year they are learning the ropes and the second they are running for reelection.

If the campaign doesn't end then nothing can get done.

they need to change it universally, winner take all is a bad representation.

We could save even more money and time by not having any elections at all and instead have a dictatorship. A dictatorship is an excellent idea, just as long as I'm the dictator.

mdovell says

Extend the number of representatives by 100

This is an interesting suggestion. I've thought for a while that the current 435 limit didn't really make sense any more because the representative to population ratios had gotten out of whack.

Truthplease says

One SSN, equals one vote. Keep the polls open for the poor people who don't have computers.

Should be one taxpayer, one vote. those who don't pay any income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote.

HousingWatcher says

We could save even more money and time by not having any elections at all and instead have a dictatorship. A dictatorship is an excellent idea, just as long as I'm the dictator.

I'd be OK with APOCALYPSEFUCK as dictator.

zzyzzx says

Should be one taxpayer, one vote. those who don't pay any income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote.

Extend that to corporations. Those who pay no taxes, are not allowed to expend any funding on PACs or other political lobbying activities.

zzyzzx says

Should be one taxpayer, one vote. those who don't pay any income taxes shouldn't have the right to vote.

I hate saying this because it will probably sound bad. It should be one taxpayer, one vote, with an education qualifier. You must at least have a HS diploma and pass a test on the fundamentals of government. Maybe a college education?

That probably is a really horrible thing to think.

I was just thinking of that movie Idiocracy. It shows the educated people becoming extinct because the ignorant people reproduce more. Eventually we believe electrolites are what plants crave.

If stupid people outnumber the smart people, then the stupid people won't understand the consequences of what they are voting for.

What about tests for politicans? That's where we need tests.

HousingWatcher says

What about tests for politicans? That's where we need tests.

We need a Voigt Kampff machine ASAP, and administer it to all candidates prior to them being allowed on the ballot.

This would be a huge achievement for mankind.

How many are actually for this on principle rather than politics. Suppose it could be done for all states?