Republicans: When you can't win, change the game - Page 3

yg17 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

to be honest Ive thought about Texas....I suspect that I will end up somewhere in the SW at some point in time during the next decade.

That works until the increasing Latino population turns it blue.

Try Utah. That's probably pretty safe from us liberals

mobilehaathi · Jan 26, 2013, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

To be honest I don't know what the answer is....there probably isn't one.

Do you fundamentally believe that each person's vote should be worth no more or less than any other person's vote?

Or would you prefer that some people's vote be worth more?

rdowns · Jan 26, 2013, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

to be honest Ive thought about Texas....I suspect that I will end up somewhere in the SW at some point in time during the next decade.

Just a heads up, Texas is projected to be a battleground state in 2016 and likely blue by 2020 due to the rise in Hispanic population.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobilehaathi

Do you fundamentally believe that each person's vote should be worth no more or less than any other person's vote?

Or would you prefer that some people's vote be worth more?

We already have that. It's called the US Senate.

Rodimus Prime · Jan 26, 2013, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

To be honest I don't know what the answer is....there probably isn't one.

umm well their are some things.

First making gerrymandering illegal.
2nd PA needs more dem representivies that is more in line with how the population votes. Not the current rigged system.

Lets face it for most of the population our vote is worthless since the system is so rigged.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdowns

Just a heads up, Texas is projected to be a battleground state in 2016 and likely blue by 2020 due to the rise in Hispanic population..

I could see the state rigging things before that happened. Like awarding votes based on districts if it was any fear of that really happening. State voted 45%+ blue in the last election but have less than 30% of our congressional represtives that are dem. Made worse by we are massively over represtived by tea party.

likemyorbs · Jan 26, 2013, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

To be honest I don't know what the answer is....there probably isn't one.

There isn't one because you're proposing a solution in search of a problem, when in reality there is no problem and only feels that way to you because it's not the way it should be in your anarchist fantasies. The people of Philadelphia county are Pennsylvanians as much as the people in the rural parts, if the majority of the residents of the state vote democrat, then it's a democratic state regardless of how the population is distributed. If you don't like that then clearly you have a problem with democracy because you're attempting to suppress the vote of the majority.

Btw, I think we should get rid of the electoral vote system altogether. That way I know republicans will never win another election. But then they would complain that the coasts don't represent all of America and that the election is unfair. Right?

mobilehaathi · Jan 26, 2013, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdowns

We already have that. It's called the US Senate.

oh I'm quite aware...

glocke12 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobilehaathi

Do you fundamentally believe that each person's vote should be worth no more or less than any other person's vote?

Or would you prefer that some people's vote be worth more?

No....

I just think that its screwy that a state like PA which is largely rural, has its fate decided by a single population center that does not understand or is even really able to relate to the people in the other areas of the state.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

There isn't one because you're proposing a solution in search of a problem, when in reality there is no problem and only feels that way to you because it's not the way it should be in your anarchist fantasies. The people of Philadelphia county are Pennsylvanians as much as the people in the rural parts, if the majority of the residents of the state vote democrat, then it's a democratic state regardless of how the population is distributed. If you don't like that then clearly you have a problem with democracy because you're attempting to suppress the vote of the majority.

Maybe we can just redraw the NJ boundaries so that Philadelphia is part of your state.

likemyorbs · Jan 26, 2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

Maybe we can just redraw the NJ boundaries so that Philadelphia is part of your state.

Why? Because you don't like how they vote so you want to separate them? Do you even comprehend what you're saying here?

yg17 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

No....

I just think that its screwy that a state like PA which is largely rural, has its fate decided by a single population center that does not understand or is even really able to relate to the people in the other areas of the state.

That's what Congress is for. Last time I checked, people in Philadelphia aren't voting for congressional representatives in Bum****ville PA

glocke12 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

Why? Because you don't like how they vote so you want to separate them? Do you even comprehend what you're saying here?

Ok..I'll be clear...

Philadelphia is a *****hole and Id rather it be part of NJ than PA.

Arran · Jan 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

No....

I just think that its screwy that a state like PA which is largely rural, has its fate decided by a single population center that does not understand or is even really able to relate to the people in the other areas of the state.

Can't you just be happy they're all concentrated in Philly and not living next door to you!

Moyank24 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

No....

I just think that its screwy that a state like PA which is largely rural, has its fate decided by a single population center that does not understand or is even really able to relate to the people in the other areas of the state.

You realize that if it was turned around, and the rural population outvoted those of the urban population the same could be said?

It's why we each have 1 vote.

glocke12 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arran

Can't you just be happy they're all concentrated in Philly and not living next door to you!

haha...theres a silver lining.

yg17 · Jan 26, 2013, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moyank24

You realize that if it was turned around, and the rural population outvoted those of the urban population the same could be said?

It's why we each have 1 vote.

Exactly what happened in Missouri. I live smack in the middle of blue St. Louis but the rural population makes this a red state.

rdowns · Jan 26, 2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

No....

I just think that its screwy that a state like PA which is largely rural, has its fate decided by a single population center that does not understand or is even really able to relate to the people in the other areas of the state.

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it any more true. Even if you took 1,536,471 votes from Obama (the # of people in Phila. county, way more than # voters), he still would have won PA.

quagmire · Jan 26, 2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

I just think that its screwy that a state like PA which is largely rural, has its fate decided by a single population center that does not understand or is even really able to relate to the people in the other areas of the state.

It's not screwy. The population of PA voted for Obama. Rightfully so, the electoral votes went to Obama. You would have a case if Romney won the majority of the votes, but Obama still got the electoral votes. Like the article points out with Virginia, despite Obama having more votes, Romney would walk away with the majority of the electoral votes. That's screwy.

likemyorbs · Jan 26, 2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yg17

Exactly what happened in Missouri. I live smack in the middle of blue St. Louis but the rural population makes this a red state.

But if the democrats decided they want to redistrict it and change that, you know the GOP would cry foul about the liberals suppressing their votes and being unAmerican

jnpy!$4g3cwk · Jan 26, 2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

Philadelphia County does not speak for all of PA.

To be honest, I think we should just give it to NJ and be done with it..

Good idea. If I were the state of NJ, I would offer to take it. And, all of its tax revenue.

You do understand that urban areas have been subsidizing rural areas since the days of the Pharaohs, right? Not to mention being the customers for all of the farming and ranching produce? When I lived around farmers, they liked to pat themselves on the back about how "they" were feeding all of "us". Sure, but "we" are building the tractors (and everything else) "they" use. Econ 1A stuff.

Recommended reading: The Economy of Cities by Jane Jacobs

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

to be honest Ive thought about Texas....I suspect that I will end up somewhere in the SW at some point in time during the next decade.

You won't be happy just anywhere in Texas. Trust me, I used to live there. Check out Lufkin.

Ugg · Jan 26, 2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

I don't know...

Is the current system fair as it stands now?

Look at my home state of PA....Virtually 90% of the state votes republican, yet is always delivered to the dems because of the liberal population centers of the philadelphia area and pittsburgh area shutting the rest of us out.

How is that system any fairer?

So you're saying rural voters deserve more influence in state government? Could you explain why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwiftLives

Are you proposing that votes should be awarded based on geographic area rather than population?

That's exactly what they want, to turn this into a rural vs urban contest. The problem of course is that we are an increasingly urban country and while the repubs may gain a few votes now, they're going to lose in the long run. This is one of those moves that will come back to bite them for sure.

Rodimus Prime · Jan 26, 2013, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdowns

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it any more true. Even if you took 1,536,471 votes from Obama (the # of people in Phila. county, way more than # voters), he still would have won PA.

Dame those facts killing a right wing lies and bs yet again.

normwood · Jan 26, 2013, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dscuber9000

I would LOVE to have Presidential elections decided on popular vote rather than electoral. Not as a Democrat, but as someone who wants a more representative democracy.

This!

Steve

samiwas · Jan 26, 2013, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

I don't know...

Is the current system fair as it stands now?

Look at my home state of PA....Virtually 90% of the state votes republican, yet is always delivered to the dems because of the liberal population centers of the philadelphia area and pittsburgh area shutting the rest of us out.

How is that system any fairer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by glocke12

really...my state looks pretty damn red to me.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...s/pennsylvania

OK, from your very link:

Code:

✓  Barack Obama	  2,990,274     52.1%
   Mitt Romney    2,680,434     46.7%
   Others         71,332        1.2%

Not even close to 90% of the population votes Republican. Not even CLOSE. What you are suggesting is that if 99 counties of one person each voted for Guy 1, and one county of 10,000 people voted for Guy 2, that Guy 1 should win, even though he received less than one percent of the vote.

Even if your state "looks red", it's still a majority blue by actual vote.

How about we get rid of this silly electoral system altogether? That way, nothing could be rigged to make one area take precedence over another area. Would you support that idea?

Or are you still determined that the number of counties/districts, not the number of people, should decide the vote, and that we can redraw those districts at a whim. And if you support that the districts should be able to be redrawn after every election to capture a certain group of people within a party's decided base, then you do not truly support any sort of democracy.

VulchR · Jan 26, 2013, 01:09 PM

As an overseas US citizen who votes in VA, I am glad to see the Republicans have not been able to pass this bill. I can vote in federal elections only, so it would be rather unfair for state politicians for whom I cannot vote to determine how my vote gets tallied for the federal electoral college. So unfair, in fact, that if such a bill ever gets passed I would investigate challenging it court.

Very sick of Republicans trying to usurp elections through trickery rather than ideas....

zioxide · Jan 26, 2013, 01:26 PM

Congressional districts should be eliminated all together. They are ****ing stupid and serve no purpose other than to rig elections.

jnpy!$4g3cwk · Jan 26, 2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zioxide

Congressional districts should be eliminated all together. They are ****ing stupid and serve no purpose other than to rig elections.

I understand the sentiment, but, proportional representation has huge issues also. Bunches of small parties typically mean changing coalitions every few months. If a guy is elected to a small party-- who does he represent? At least with district representation, he represents the people inside the boundaries of that district.

Obviously, though, it hasn't worked well to let the politicians themselves draw up boundaries.

Jan 26, 2013, 01:09 PM	#73
VulchR macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Scotland	As an overseas US citizen who votes in VA, I am glad to see the Republicans have not been able to pass this bill. I can vote in federal elections only, so it would be rather unfair for state politicians for whom I cannot vote to determine how my vote gets tallied for the federal electoral college. So unfair, in fact, that if such a bill ever gets passed I would investigate challenging it court. Very sick of Republicans trying to usurp elections through trickery rather than ideas.... __________________ My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
	2

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Jan 26, 2013, 01:26 PM	#74
zioxide macrumors 603 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Massachusetts	Congressional districts should be eliminated all together. They are ****ing stupid and serve no purpose other than to rig elections.
	2