Posted on 01/31/2013 11:13:56 AM PST by fractionated
“Dems don’t like it?”
Then it must be good. Count me in.
If you were a liberal Democrat, I’m sure it would.
Proportional allotment makes a lot more sense than what we have now.
I agree that the proposal is a good one. If the proposed system was used, last year, Romney would have won about 25 electoral votes in California. If every state allocates electoral votes according to the proposed change, presidential candidates would campaign in more states, instead of only caring about several states.
If michigan districts went along party lines it would have given Romney 9 districts and Obama 5.
Obviously there are swing districts so Romney would have had an advantage with a little breathing room.
I’d be happy knowing that my district actually got an electoral vote in favor of the guy we voted for even if we lost overall.
Todd Akin was borderline retarded.
I thought Priebus did a decent job. Every time I heard him he sounded like one of us.
I have no use for Tokyo Rove.
I'll agree with that if we are excused from paying any taxes (Federal/State/some local).
Otherwise you can go pound sand. 'Pod.
You won’t escape taxes, but with drastically fewer government workers voting, I can almost guarantee your tax burden will be reduced.
Sure, we’ll do it in TX—when the Dem legislators adopt it in CA; we’ll do it in GA if they adopt it in NY; we’ll do it in MO if they do it in MN; we’ll do it in TN and IN if they do it in NJ, etc.
I think that a fair method would be to allocate one EV per CD carried and then have the two extra EVs go 1 for the candidate who wins the statewide vote and 1 for the one who carries the most districts (and if there’s a tie in the number of CDs carried, that EV can go to the tied candidate with the most statewide votes).
Sure, we’ll do it in TX—when the Dem legislators adopt it in CA; we’ll do it in GA if they adopt it in NY; we’ll do it in MO if they do it in MN; we’ll do it in TN and IN if they do it in NJ, etc.
I think that a fair method would be to allocate one EV per CD carried and then have the two extra EVs go 1 for the candidate who wins the statewide vote and 1 for the one who carries the most districts (and if there’s a tie in the number of CDs carried, that EV can go to the tied candidate with the most statewide votes).
Here's some things to consider, I know I have a habit of being the party pooper.
So far a couple of states VA and FL have chickened out on this. That is because the Dems are making it an issue.
Last year Dems used some of the new states voting laws: voter ID + limiting voting times to get out the minority Dem vote. They calling it ‘voter suppression and they broadcast it to get them out to vote. This is likely a reason those states chickened out now on this.
Back in 2006 the Republican congress under GWB re-authorized the Voting Rights Act as is.(to get minority votes I assume.) ‘
That Federal law requires many ‘Southern states’ including VA and FL to get permission from the justice department before changing ANY election laws. This was used last year to kill new voting ID laws in some states.
So I am not optimistic about this going anywhere.
Like I said GOP wussing out is only problem. VRA could be used against us in the South. Can’t save the dems in MI, or PA (states we won’t win statewide unless we’re winning easily anyway so there is zero downside to doing it there) if those states man up.
The dems are filthy hypocrites, after Osama won 1 vote from Nebraska (where along with Maine they have this system) Republicans tried to abolish it in that state where the democrats winning 1 vote from Omaha is only possibility other than the GOP winning them all. The liberal newspapers in state all opposed the move praising the system as the greatest thing since electricity on farms and every democrat in the (officially nonpartisan) state senate voted no and the measure was defeated (since not all the Republicans voted for it).
They are OF COURSE for it where it helps them in a Republican state with 1 competitive district, if it came up in Texas they would pee themselves with glee supporting it. Mentioning this is the perfect counter to shite like this article. Dirty nasty hypocrite swine have no legs to stand on.
MAN UP GOP, GROW SOME PILLS.
Yeah, that's a particularly obnoxious part of the Civil Rights Act, to which only the original 11 Confederate Stares are subject. Northern states (like Pennsylvania) don't have to answer to the DOJ on their voting laws, unless of course DOJ sues in federal court.
Meanwhile the democrats are quietly setting up these interstate voting compacts where several states agree to give their electoral votes to the overall winner of those several states.
This means that even if your state votes overwhelmingly republican, your votes will go to the democrats if surrounding states go democrat. Fortunately the deal was killed here in Michigan a few years ago.
Obviously, when you get caught cheating often enough you don’t get the benefit of the doubt like everybody else.
Republican congress under GWB re-authorized it in 2006 as is. Now those states get blocked from passing voting ID laws for even getting rid of early voting, and forget this new idea.
Doesnt look like it got them many minority votes that year or in 2008 either. That made as much sense as giving illegals the vote.
The 4 years in the middle of Bush where we had both Houses of Congress were horribly squandered.
Yeah the national popular vote thing, it only goes into effect if states that constitute a majority of the EC pass it.
CA, IL, NJ, WA, MA, VT, HI, and MD have passed it. All were under total rat control when they did (Hawaii overrode the veto of former RINO Governor Lingle).
It was voted down in Michigan a few years ago thank God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.