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

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Image

America: predominantly blue. So much for the 'right of center' nation.

It's the Senate that is the truly undemocratic house. Two senators from each state, with no regard to population. Nebraska, Wyoming and North Dakota have as many senators in the Senate as California, Florida and New York.

The senate is good though because it doesn't allow states with large populations to simply dictate rules to states with smaller populations.

I think congress needs to become representative. If a party wins 30% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats, etc.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by rdowns

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html

This chart show California population going up since 2004 if I read it right or was this your intent?

Gerrymandering is BS...

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Ugg

I'd like to see some evidence about California hemorrhaging residents. I think it's mostly imaginary.

You don't lose electoral seats over imaginary population shrink.

However if the census of the United States is not enough, I recommend Google...

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

You don't lose electoral seats over imaginary population shrink.

However if the census of the United States is not enough, I recommend Google...

Not necessarily. Seats are apportioned by state approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states. So you could gain residents but your share of the total population could be lower.

California population 2000 census- 33,871,648
California population 2010 census- 37,253,956

That's a 10% rise in population with no change to number of seats.

NY 2000 - 18,976,457
NY 2010 - 19,570,261

Loss of 2 seats.

Ohio 2000 - 11,353,140
Ohio 2010 - 11,544,225

Loss of 2 seats.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by Ugg

I'd like to see some evidence about California hemorrhaging residents. I think it's mostly imaginary.

Good weather states are going to gain residents, there's no doubt about that but the traffic problems of states like Texas, Arizona and Florida and lack of urban amenities mean they don't attract as many of the creative class.

CA has been losing a lost of residents that much is true and a good chunk of them are moving to Texas. Now it is means Texas is becoming more blue but the problem is they are moving to the cities and they rig the system to suppress those votes.

In Texas they did some things with congressional and state districts that they try to make sure all dems are minorities. They do not want a white dem elected.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by eric/

I think congress needs to become representative. If a party wins 30% of the votes, they get 30% of the seats, etc.

That would definitely be good, then we wouldn't have to worry about the Republican house obstructing congress since the Democrats got over 50% of the votes for the house.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by rdowns

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

You don't lose electoral seats over imaginary population shrink.

However if the census of the United States is not enough, I recommend Google...

rdowns' link proved my point. From 2004 to 2011, California gained 1.8 million people, that's hardly 'bleeding'.

Texas and Florida in the same time period gained 3.1 and 1.6 million people respectively. Obviously, their rate of growth is higher but the figures only show total population growth and it's not broken down by birth/death rates or people moving in/moving out of the state.

BTW, California did not lose any congressional seats. The losses were almost all in the cold, rust states of the upper midwest and east.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

That would definitely be good, then we wouldn't have to worry about the Republican house obstructing congress since the Democrats got over 50% of the votes for the house.

Democrats got a million more votes nationwide than Republicans in all house races yet the Republicans control the house. Gerrymandering, **** yeah!

[likemyorbs]

To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?

Nope. I think we get a lot more information about the potential local impact of the candidates' policies because the electoral college is state-based. Also, the results of the EC are highly correlated with the popular vote anyways.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?

As long as it's replaced with the popular vote.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Nope. I think we get a lot more information about the potential local impact of the candidates' policies because the electoral college is state-based. Also, the results of the EC are highly correlated with the popular vote anyways.

It's also winner take all per state. This really locks us into the current leading parties. Others aren't likely to gain a lot of leverage when the majority of the popular vote is needed in a given state. There would still be problems. Multiple choice has its own flaws, but right now we have battleground states. If a candidate can't carry a specific state, it's worthless to them in presidential elections.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Nope. I think we get a lot more information about the potential local impact of the candidates' policies because the electoral college is state-based. Also, the results of the EC are highly correlated with the popular vote anyways.

That only matters in a handful of states. The rest of them do not matter at all. It should be changed to popular vote.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

As long as it's replaced with the popular vote.

Of course. Popular vote is the definition of a pure democracy. But I think it would be difficult for republicans to support a move like that because they would lose practically every single election.

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I don't know...

::::SNIP::::

Phily isn't the only place in PA that vote blue, here in Erie we are considered blue. Might have something about the fact that we are the 3rd largest city in PA.

Hugh

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

To our liberal and conservative forum members, can you at least agree that the electoral vote system should be thrown out?

In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America. Without it, politicians would only have to win the large cities to win the popular vote. While it isn't perfect, it's better than a simple majority.

----------

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

Of course. Popular vote is the definition of a pure democracy. But I think it would be difficult for republicans to support a move like that because they would lose practically every single election.

The US is NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic based on democratic principles.

Did you not take civics courses in school?

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by thewitt

In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America. Without it, politicians would only have to win the large cities to win the popular vote. While it isn't perfect, it's better than a simple majority

So a rual vote should count more than a city vote?

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

So a rual vote should count more than a city vote?

Probably unless the city votes Republican, perhaps we could give each person in a city three-fifths of a vote...

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by thewitt

In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America. Without it, politicians would only have to win the large cities to win the popular vote. While it isn't perfect, it's better than a simple majority...

Sure, but why does a rancher's vote matter more than an engineer who lives in the city? Why does rural America matter when most of our problems and solutions are in cities?

[swiftaw]

A possible compromise would be to keep the EC, but add some EC votes for the winner of the popular vote. So you get the designated number of EC votes for winning each state, and you also get say 11 EC votes for winning the total popular vote.


One thing I would like to see is the elimination of primaries. Just have a general election featuring all people who want to run, including multiple D/R and also minority party candidates. Then use the Hare voting system to pick the winner (although this may be too complicated for some citizens). Along with that, the election cycle has to be shortened. It lasts for over a year. How are politicians supposed to run a country if they are too busy campaigning. Along with that, I think that 2-year term is too short for congress. By the time you get elected it's time to start campaigning for the next election.

I agree that Gerrymandering is evil, but I don't know what to do about it. Both parties are too enamored with the idea of creating safe seats, and aren't going to give up that power without a fight (or a rebellion).

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by thewitt

In national elections, the Electoral College protects rural America.

Lol, apparently not well enough. So you believe that a rural vote is worth more than a city vote? I don't understand how you can make sense out of this in your brain. Every American is worth one vote, which ever candidates gets more votes wins, how is that not perfect? Sounds pretty damn perfect to me. It would to you too if republicans were able to win on popular vote, which they almost never can.

----------

Originally Posted by thewitt

The US is NOT a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic based on democratic principles.

Did you not take civics courses in school?

A representative republic has nothing to do with electoral colleges. All it means is that we elect representatives to make laws instead of citizens directly making laws by themselves. This says nothing about what type of voting system we should have. We would still be a representative republic with a popular vote system. I know the thought of majority rule is frightening to conservatives though.



I'm sad to say that most of our republican posters here have admitted that they would be willing to suppress the will of the majority in order for their party to win by keeping an easily manipulated electoral system that allows them to cheat more easily. That pretty much sums you guys up. Pretty anti-American if you ask me.

[thewitt]

You liberals are the ones saying a rural vote means more than a city vote, not me.

Really, it's a waste of my time to even post here.

Cross one more off your list. Soon, if not already, you can all just agree on every point made and you will be happily ignorant and in bliss.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by thewitt

You liberals are the ones saying a rural vote means more than a city vote, not me.

Really, it's a waste of my time to even post here.

Cross one more off your list. Soon, if not already, you can all just agree on every point made and you will be happily ignorant and in bliss.

What point are we failing to see? You openly admit that you dont want the vote of the majority to determine presidential elections because you dislike that the majority of the population who happens to live in more densely populated states vote differently than you because they have a more educated population. You just seem to be frustrated by facts. I would love to debate with you but you make it impossible because your right wing bias clouds your mind and suppresses the processing of facts, figures, and pure logic. Can't you ever admit when you're wrong?

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by thewitt

You liberals are the ones saying a rural vote means more than a city vote, not me.

Really, it's a waste of my time to even post here.

Cross one more off your list. Soon, if not already, you can all just agree on every point made and you will be happily ignorant and in bliss.

we are still waiting for you to explain how you can come to any other conclusion with what you said.

Also think it is funny that you are calling us liberal. You are ultra right wing but then again ultra right wing calls anything that is not ultra conservative liberal.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

Also think it is funny that you are calling us liberal. You are ultra right wing but then again ultra right wing calls anything that is not ultra conservative liberal.

Ronald Reagan would have been too liberal for conservatives today.