Republicans plan move to fix the next Presidential election.

[techs]

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

The GOP's Electoral College Scheme

Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

Already, two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. The candidate who wins the most votes statewide takes the final two at-large electoral votes. Only once, when President Obama won a congressional district based in Omaha in 2008, has either of those states actually split their vote.

But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage.

All three states have given the Democratic nominee their electoral votes in each of the last six presidential elections. Now, senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in all three states to end the winner-take-all system.



If they can't win an election, change the rules.
Sickening.

 

[Ausm]

This is an inevitable extension to voter suppression by the Right to steal Elections.

 

[HomerJS]

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

The GOP's Electoral College Scheme

Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

Already, two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. The candidate who wins the most votes statewide takes the final two at-large electoral votes. Only once, when President Obama won a congressional district based in Omaha in 2008, has either of those states actually split their vote.

But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage.

All three states have given the Democratic nominee their electoral votes in each of the last six presidential elections. Now, senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in all three states to end the winner-take-all system.



If they can't win an election, change the rules.
Sickening.

Wouldn't it be easier on them just to import more angry white people??

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wouldn't it be easier on them just to import more angry white people??

Hey, wait a minute! We have too many progressives as it is!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why is it that the liberals were using PA as an example for proportional representation such was OK. bitching that not enough districts were blue.

All this does is to ensure that a person's vote is counted more when they try to stand up and be counted.

Removes the oppression of the majority.

 

[schneiderguy]

This is an inevitable extension to voter suppression by the Right to steal Elections.

Switching to a proportional electoral college system would likely increase voter turnout. In a winner take all system there is little incentive to vote if it's clear who will win your entire state.

Voter suppression not found.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Why do we still use this obselete electoral college again?

 

[nageov3t]

I, for one, am stunned that a state political party is trying to manipulate the system for their advantage.

 

[HomerJS]

Switching to a proportional electoral college system would likely increase voter turnout. In a winner take all system there is little incentive to vote if it's clear who will win your entire state.

Voter suppression not found.

Why a hybrid of existing system. Why not just go with popular vote nation wide?

At least it would force politicians to campaign somwhere else besides swing states.

 

[HomerJS]

Hey, wait a minute! We have too many progressives as it is!

Touche!

But remember your boy Sen Lindsay Graham already admitted not having enough "angry white men" was costing Republicans.

 

[Jimzz]

Yea I have no problem with this, as long as EVERY state does it. I love to see Rep's in CA and other liberal states and Dem's in Texas and more conserative states.

 

[schneiderguy]

Why a hybrid of existing system. Why not just go with popular vote nation wide?

At least it would force politicians to campaign somwhere else besides swing states.

Moving to a non-winner take all electoral college would accomplish the same thing.

Eliminating the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[HomerJS]

Yea I have no problem with this, as long as EVERY state does it. I love to see Rep's in CA and other liberal states and Dem's in Texas and more conserative states.

As long as every state does it the same way. As we saw with voter ID laws Republicans craft the rules to get their outcome.

 

[Subyman]

I wish we would throw out winner takes all. I live in southern IL and we have never, ever had a voice in IL elections.

 

[waggy]

I wish we would throw out winner takes all. I live in southern IL and we have never, ever had a voice in IL elections.

unless you live in Chicagoland you have no voice in IL elections..

 

[chucky2]

I wish we would throw out winner takes all. I live in southern IL and we have never, ever had a voice in IL elections.

You SI folks would be far better just joining KY. Other than St. Clair because of E. St. Louis, you have almost nothing in common with Chicago/Crook Co (which is what decides Chicagoland voting). The alternative would be to let Chicago and Crook Co. be their own voting state, and leave IL sans them and E. St. Louis - give to St. Louis - as its own state. Then we'd have representative voting. They'd be in their utopia, and we'd have much more fair elections. Not that it'll ever happen, but, one can only dream...

Chuck

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is an inevitable extension to voter suppression by the Right to steal Elections.

No, it's quite the reverse. When it's winner take all the portion of the state is completely disenfranchised at the national level. There should have always been a proportional system which more closely follows the popular vote. If I don't want to vote for the only party in my state that has a chance of winning who are you to toss my voice entirely? You suppress my and others votes. You justify that how? Because you might lose an election?

 

[Ausm]

Switching to a proportional electoral college system would likely increase voter turnout. In a winner take all system there is little incentive to vote if it's clear who will win your entire state.

Voter suppression not found.

Why does the Electoral college need to be changed in the first place?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As long as every state does it the same way. As we saw with voter ID laws Republicans craft the rules to get their outcome.

There might be minor variations, but yes, I agree this should be in all 50 states. The majority party however will oppose this. The Reps will do so with the Blue states, and the Dems for the Red.

 

[Ausm]

No, it's quite the reverse. When it's winner take all the portion of the state is completely disenfranchised at the national level. There should have always been a proportional system which more closely follows the popular vote. If I don't want to vote for the only party in my state that has a chance of winning who are you to toss my voice entirely? You suppress my and others votes. You justify that how? Because you might lose an election?

Refer to post #18.

 

[thraashman]

There might be minor variations, but yes, I agree this should be in all 50 states. The majority party however will oppose this. The Reps will do so with the Blue states, and the Dems for the Red.

But the point of the matter is that the Reps are trying to do this only for the blue states, and the Dems aren't trying to do this at all. One party is trying to game the system, and the other is trying to play within the rules of the system. So the Reps, rather than changing their party to be more in line with what the American people want, are trying to change the rules to make it harder for the American people to get what they want when what they want is Dems.

In other words, Republicans are being their normal, shitty selves.

 

[Ausm]

But the point of the matter is that the Reps are trying to do this only for the blue states, and the Dems aren't trying to do this at all. One party is trying to game the system, and the other is trying to play within the rules of the system. So the Reps, rather than changing their party to be more in line with what the American people want, are trying to change the rules to make it harder for the American people to get what they want when what they want is Dems.

In other words, Republicans are being their normal, shitty selves.

But but but it's the only way the Republicans will be able to get a swing state in any Presidential Election! :twisted::whiste:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why a hybrid of existing system. Why not just go with popular vote nation wide?

At least it would force politicians to campaign somwhere else besides swing states.

So instead of 8 swing states; you have 8 key states because of population.

Proportional is best; this way a Democrat in Nebraska or Kansas can have a chance or his vote being worth something; same goes for a Republican in NY or CA

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why does the Electoral college need to be changed in the first place?

The EC is not being changed;

It is the selection to the EC by state basis that is being proposed for a change

 

[schneiderguy]

Why does the Electoral college need to be changed in the first place?

I never said it did. I refuted your ridiculous assertion that this was voter suppression.