|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 26 2013 09:48 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 09:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 26 2013 09:24 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:I don't think discussing the "popular vote" makes sense with regards to the House. We aren't electing parties, though parties play a role, we're electing individual representatives. The math that the article is suggesting is that more people in California will need to vote Democrat for Democrats in a different state to beat Republican challengers. It just doesn't work that way. The overall point of the article is that the mood of the country would have to be so anti republican that in order to narrowly take back the house they need an overwhelming popular vote victory due to the gerrymandering which is just out of control (for both sides but mostly republicans because of 2010). Well no, the mood of a region, state or district could change. The point being that one part of the country can change the way it votes without regard to how the rest of the country votes. Baring an unusually terrible candidate (which republicans arent exactly opposed to having) you can usually map how a district votes on a semi consistant basis based on the popular vote margins. Its a fairly exact science actually considering what they are doing.
You'd need to explain that - I'm not sure what you are saying.
|
It's easy to map districts based on the entire area's demographics and past popular voting to push the end result of elected officials in one direction. (I'm pretty damn sure that's what he's saying.)
Very high margins in the opponent's districts (80+% is best) and about 55-60% in the significant majority of districts that you actually plan to win. Parties know they can't win all the districts, but they can win most of them, then they can control governance through that majority even though some of the opposing party will be elected. It's all about party control.
|
On January 26 2013 09:45 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:I don't think discussing the "popular vote" makes sense with regards to the House. We aren't electing parties, though parties play a role, we're electing individual representatives. The math that the article is suggesting is that more people in California will need to vote Democrat for Democrats in a different state to beat Republican challengers. It just doesn't work that way. I'm not going to review or defend the math in that article. I will stand by their point that gerrymandering has gotten out of control. A lot of people do vote on party lines, and most representatives, once elected, vote along party lines. In a lot of ways, we are electing parties. If one group wins the popular vote, that group should have or nearly have control unless we are comfortable with our democratic republic not being very democratic. Looking at the Michigan races, the closest race a Dem won was 61%. Two of them won with well over 80% of the vote. Republicans are sitting comfortably between 55-65% in most of their district. With those margins, dems can win the popular vote and end up with 1/3 or less of the seats for a state. They are going to go to Washington, and for the most part do what the majority or minority leader tells them, that's how our system works. There are some exceptions, like Justin Amash, but they are punished for not following along, he lost a committee seat for not voting the way Beohner told him often enough. I'm willing to bet most people don't even know the name of their rep, but regardless, I'll break the house popular vote down to the state level at a couple of states too. "In North Carolina, Republican candidates garnered a total of 2.14 million votes in the 13 districts, winning nine. Democrats gained a total of 2.22 million votes, winning three districts and leading in a fourth. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of the 18 districts even as they lost the aggregate vote by 2.7 million to 2.6 million." Are you going to tell me that discussing those numbers doesn't make sense? The overall popular vote trend holds at a lot of state levels too.
I understand gerrymandering and that it's a problem, but the article was lumping in irrelevant data and drawing faulty conclusions.
Their headline:
Thanks To Gerrymandering, Democrats Would Need To Win The Popular Vote By Over 7 Percent To Take Back The House
That's just not how it works.
As the article states:
If Democrats had won in 2012 by the same commanding 7.9 percent margin they achieved in 2006, they would still only have a bare 220-215 seat majority in the incoming House, assuming that these additional votes were distributed evenly throughout the country.
That's a hell of an assumption. It also relies on another huge assumption - that the next election is also between generic Dem and generic Rep in each and every district.
|
On January 26 2013 10:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 09:48 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 09:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 26 2013 09:24 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 09:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:I don't think discussing the "popular vote" makes sense with regards to the House. We aren't electing parties, though parties play a role, we're electing individual representatives. The math that the article is suggesting is that more people in California will need to vote Democrat for Democrats in a different state to beat Republican challengers. It just doesn't work that way. The overall point of the article is that the mood of the country would have to be so anti republican that in order to narrowly take back the house they need an overwhelming popular vote victory due to the gerrymandering which is just out of control (for both sides but mostly republicans because of 2010). Well no, the mood of a region, state or district could change. The point being that one part of the country can change the way it votes without regard to how the rest of the country votes. Baring an unusually terrible candidate (which republicans arent exactly opposed to having) you can usually map how a district votes on a semi consistant basis based on the popular vote margins. Its a fairly exact science actually considering what they are doing. You'd need to explain that - I'm not sure what you are saying.
There are 3 kinds of voters to simplify it: Democratic Voters who always vote democratic, Republican voters who vote republican and "swing" voters who might vote for either one. The swing voter might typically vote for one or other but there able to be convinced to vote for the other.
Now each state generally has a mix of each of these 3 kinds and are more or less broken up regionally and the trick to gerrymandering is to have enough of "your guys" to gurentee a win and then put all of the other party so that you can make there vote matter as little as possible. Now of course its often hard to get a full majority of republicans in each disctrict so they settle for just having far more of there side then the other.
Now to the part where I think I confused you. Lets say a District is roughly 45% republican 35% democrat and 25% swing voter. In order to win the democrat would need to win something like 80% of the swing vote to take the election which of course would mean its a very good democratic year and would most likely mean the democrats won the popular vote by a lot.
Now each district isnt the same and sometimes having a strong or weak candidate can push it over the top for one candidate or another but overall you can typically measure each district by how much of the popular vote the democrats need to take in order for the climate to be such that they could take back the house.
|
I only used that article because it had numbers for total national votes in the house election at the beginning, which was all I was looking for didn't even read most of it. Looked like propaganda to me.
|
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time).
|
On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time).
If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working.
|
On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working.
I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted.
Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population.
Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes.
Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system.
This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits.
|
On January 26 2013 08:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 06:21 Saryph wrote:On January 26 2013 06:13 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:On January 26 2013 05:56 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 05:48 Saryph wrote:If you look at the 6 'swing states' that, at the state level, are controlled by republican governors and state legislatures, and have mentioned interest in changing the way they allocate their electoral votes, the results from 2012 would be this according to dailykos ( source): - Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney - Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney - Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney - Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney - Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney - Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney The change in these states alone would have changed the result of the presidential election. Imagine if Clinton ran in 2016 and won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes but lost the election. Talk about civil unrest. Well, if they wanted to, they could just pick who they wanted and not have an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Appointment_by_state_legislatureThe state is allowed to pick their electors however they want to. The fact that all do it by some form of a popular vote does not mean other methods are not allowed. Save for extreme circumstances, I cannot see state legislature electoral appointments going through without a significant challenge. There is simply no modern precedent. I don't disagree with you. I would object to Wisconsin going the appointment route even though I'm a Wisconsin Republican. It might be to my benefit, but it's just not fair. However, I think the idea of "splitting" the votes in a proportional manner (one for each district and two for the popular vote) are interesting ways to do it. I actually like that more than the "winner takes all" we currently have. Sure, Wisconsin will likely be a 5D-5R or 6D-4R in most years, but it's actually representative of our state rather than the 10/11D we've been the past 28 years. While I don't mind the idea of proportional distribution, I horribly dislike gerrymandering, and would like to keep it out of as many aspects of politics and elections as I can. I think a state constitutional amendment of proportional delegates combined with an objective system for break up districts would go a long way. Letting legislators redraw their own lines seems like a dumb idea to me.
If this guys idea was implemented it would be fairer, as it stands now it's just a way to let the party that got to redraw the map last time stay in power until whoever controls the states get to draw it the next time.
I think we should just do a popular vote for the presidency, the electoral college just comes close but misses the mark sometimes. If I remember my history right the founding fathers justification for it was largely a mistrust of direct democracy.
Edit: Nope, reasons were far more complex than I had remembered, no surprise there.
|
On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits.
I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered.
|
On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered.
That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state.
|
|
|
On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state.
If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be.
|
On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be.
I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method.
I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American.
|
On January 26 2013 16:34 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 16:02 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 14:59 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:59 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:42 BluePanther wrote:On January 26 2013 12:23 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2013 12:05 BluePanther wrote:
It's a partisan article, of course it has massive logical flaws -_-.
Republicans won big in 2010 and were able to gerrymander like mad in most states because the 2010 elected reps are the ones who drew the lines after the 2010 census. This is no secret, and it is a big reason the Republicans still control the house.
That said, the conclusions reached by that article are retarded at best. This whole attempted outrage at Republicans changing the rules is simply because Democrats aren't in charge of anything but the Senate and the President. They are trying to make it sound like Republicans are using "dirty tactics" to alter future elections, when you know damn well the Democrats would be doing the same if they had the opportunity. Districts in a lot of states used to be gerrymandered in the exact opposite manner.
If anything, changing to proportional votes is actually "fairer" than the current system (which Democrats defend only because it benefits them at this current time). If the districts were fair it would be a good system but the fact that they are trying to redraw the map into one in which Romney would have won despite the popular vote margin is sort of a obvious ploy and if it werent so obvious it might have had a shot at working. I think you misunderstand what is happening. They are not "redrawing the map". The map was redrawn over a year ago. It's that way for the next 8. They are changing the way the votes are alloted. Say you have a state with 3 districts (which means 5 electoral votes). This state has 1 Democratic district (everyone there votes Democrat), and 2 Republican districts (everyone there votes Republican. As I've already explained, each district is equal in population. Under our current system, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33%. He gets all 5 electoral votes. Under the proposed changes, everyone votes, and the Republican wins 67% to 33% and gets the two bonus votes. However, since the Democrat won in one district, he gets one of the remaining electoral votes and the Republican gets only two of them. So the Republican only gets 4 electoral votes instead of the 5 he gets under the current system. This is a fairer system. It is not un-flawed, but it's flaws are less imbalanced than the current system. Under the current system, if the vote is 51% to 49% in a presidential contest, the votes of the 49% are thrown out the window. The proposed system basically gives a consolation prize in closely contested states or in states where there are demographic splits. I understand what the situation is. The map was redrawn unfairly for republicans in heavily democratic states and democrats in most other states because of what happened in 2010. They will probably stay like that for at least 8 years and possibly more because of how they were redrawn but that doenst mean that since the house is gerrymandered that we should let the presidency be gerymandered. That's an opinion then. I disagree, although I think they should do this in every state. If they are going to do something like that then they should allow the districts to be drawn by a nuetral party like other states do or better yet just go for the nation popular vote initiative which gives the election to whomever wins the popular vote. Gerrymandering the presidency so its impossible or near impossible for one party to win literally flies in the very face of what a democracy is suppose to be. I disagree that a "nuetral party" should draw it. I think it should be drawn by an objective method. I believe a popular vote for president is anti-American.
What objective methods did you have in mind?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
"anti-American" LOL. Is that term supposed to have some kind of mystical weight behind it? Christ, I hate that term so much.
|
On January 26 2013 16:57 Souma wrote:
"anti-American" LOL. Is that term supposed to have some kind of mystical weight behind it? Christ, I hate that term so much.
Ok then, it's anti-"everything involved with our structural foundation as set forth by the constitution and the method by which it was designed for us to elect a president".
Happy now? Sorry, but I care about that kind of stuff. I don't like the idea of changing it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
clearly anti-american to give all american equal voting power
|
On January 26 2013 17:03 oneofthem wrote:
clearly anti-american to give all american equal voting power
^ completely unaware of how the president is elected.
|
It was funny (at least to me) when the sponsor of the bill here in Virginia said that he proposed it because the people in urban areas had too much say in deciding the president, compared to his rural constituents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
