• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republicans plan move to fix the next Presidential election.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ausm said:
But but but it's the only way the Republicans will be able to get a swing state in any Presidential Election! :twisted::whiste:
Click to expand...

Swing states are just that; you do not know which way they will be called.

Proportional allows the underdog (in any state) to have their votes mean more.

It also reduces the impact of swing states.

If proportional would give the Democrats 3 votes from Texas instead of 0 that could compensate for worrying about swings in Nevada.
 
They should just abolish the current U.S. govt and replace it with a restoration of confederalism.

The Constitution should've just required a candidate to get 2/3 of the States instead. There is really no good reason why any State should have more than one vote.
 
thraashman said:
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.
Click to expand...

The rules of the system are that states can decide how they want to choose their electors. Read the constitution.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Swing states are just that; you do not know which way they will be called.

Proportional allows the underdog (in any state) to have their votes mean more.

It also reduces the impact of swing states.

If proportional would give the Democrats 3 votes from Texas instead of 0 that could compensate for worrying about swings in Nevada.
Click to expand...

If you think they will swing to the Right anytime in the near future can you pass what your're smoking this way?
 
What about an actual majority vote, including some laws that would help eliminate voter fraud? For example you can vote as early as two weeks prior, but regardless of when you choose to vote a valid government issued photo I.D. and a picture at the time of the ballot casting will be required. The ballot will be paper punched and verified at the time of submission with a member from your voting party prior to recording for official submission. You as the voter would be required to maintain a copy (provided at no cost to the voter) until the new President has been sworn in.
 
If we're going to go down this route then just get away with the EC altogether and switch to a national popular vote. Honestly, at this point the benefits of the popular vote far exceed any negatives. The EC system is basically broken, too few states that honestly in many cases don't even represent wide swaths of the American public wield far too much power in swaying elections.
 
Ausm said:
Why do you think the Right is pushing to change the way the EC works in swing states?
Click to expand...

Because it benefits them. That is not the same thing as voter suppression.

By your logic, the Democrats in CA not changing the winner take all system (that benefits them) is voter suppression.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
If we're going to go down this route then just get away with the EC altogether and switch to a national popular vote. Honestly, at this point the benefits of the popular vote far exceed any negatives. The EC system is basically broken, too few states that honestly in many cases don't even represent wide swaths of the American public wield far too much power in swaying elections.
Click to expand...

The electoral college is not broken. The winner take all system is broken.

It is easier to change the winner take all system at the state level than it is to get a constitutional amendment passed to abolish the electoral college.
 
I'd be in favor of anything that gets us closer to a straight popular vote as long as it's done uniformly for all states, probably via a constitutional amendment.

Ausm said:
Why does the Electoral college need to be changed in the first place?
Click to expand...

The electoral college is voter suppression.
 
Ausm said:
You don't find that biased or in essence rigging an outcome?
Click to expand...

Rigging the outcome? To be more representative of the peoples votes within a state?

If a swing state adopts such; you will see other states controlled by Democrats but on the Republican side of the ledger adapt such. Every electoral vote is important; to ensure that their side gets the extra vote is critical.
Proportional representation is one way to ensure that for an underdog.
 
Last edited:
Ausm said:
How did the last Election not represent the state of Ohio?
Click to expand...

Was the State of Ohio 100% Democrat for the presidential vote?

If not; then there were Republicans who's votes did not "count".
 
EagleKeeper said:
Was the State of Ohio 100% Democrat for the presidential vote?

If not; then there were Republicans who's votes did not "count".
Click to expand...

Mine didn't count in Georgia. Hell, Atlanta is one of the most blue cities you'll find and the state went solidly red. You do it all or nothing, you don't try to game the system to make it work for only you. That'd be like the SEC deciding that controversial calls are to go in favor of the higher ranked team so that the SEC can have a better chance at a team being in the national championship game. Ignore that no other conference does this so it would be unfair to have a different set of rules for only one group to give that group a better chance at winning. If it were to happen in the context of college football that I just gave, it would be called cheating. It's cheating in this context too, some people just choose not to call it that.
 
Ausm said:
Refer to post #18.
Click to expand...

Refer to the post you quoted. I would like to see everyone have a vote at the Presidential level, whether Republican or Democrat.

To answer post #18, it effectively disenfranchises far more than any voter ID bill ever did, yet you don't see to have a problem with that.

What's wrong? If you can't figure that one out then please never ever voice an opinion of anything Republican and voting ever again. You will have lost complete credibility. To beat the obvious dead horse again those who live in a state where there is a a majority of one party or the other never have a chance to have their vote counted. It's eliminated before it was ever cast. Anyone who did not vote Dem in NY might as well have stayed home, and likewise in many red states. You discounted close to half the voters before they ever voted for President.

That's what's wrong.
 
thraashman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then they are wrong and so are Dems who play the "What problem?" card. I haven't any use for any of that. Everyone should have a chance to be heard at the national level.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Refer to the post you quoted. I would like to see everyone have a vote at the Presidential level, whether Republican or Democrat.

To answer post #18, it effectively disenfranchises far more than any voter ID bill ever did, yet you don't see to have a problem with that.

What's wrong? If you can't figure that one out then please never ever voice an opinion of anything Republican and voting ever again. You will have lost complete credibility. To beat the obvious dead horse again those who live in a state where there is a a majority of one party or the other never have a chance to have their vote counted. It's eliminated before it was ever cast. Anyone who did not vote Dem in NY might as well have stayed home, and likewise in many red states. You discounted close to half the voters before they ever voted for President.

That's what's wrong.
Click to expand...

But what's being proposed isn't a solution to that problem. Doing it in individual states, and not nation wide, may actually exacerbate the problem.

The congress seats awarded in 2012 wasn't consistent with the popular vote. I think the accepted explanation for this is due to effective gerrymandering (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

This is basically gerrymandering the electoral colleges.
 
HomerJS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Politicians would just campaign, and pander to, large population centers.

I think that's a worse system than we have now.

Fern
 
EagleKeeper said:
Was the State of Ohio 100% Democrat for the presidential vote?

If not; then there were Republicans who's votes did not "count".
Click to expand...

Was the whole country 100% Deomcrat for the presidential vote? No? Then I guess someone somewhere had a vote that did not "count".

PRESIDENT Barak Obama won by almost four percentage points and five million votes. I don't like the EC system either, but how exactly did the fail in this case? You think it should be reworked so Romney could have won in such circumstances?

But I'm sure back in 2000 when the country chose Al Gore over Bush you were screaming about the need for electoral college reform. Right? Right? Link please.

Hayabusa Rider said:
Refer to the post you quoted. I would like to see everyone have a vote at the Presidential level, whether Republican or Democrat.
Click to expand...

Oh really? And do you want everyone's vote to count the same? so someone in New York doesn't have a sixth of the voting power of someone in Alaska?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top