Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,472
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The GOP constantly ignores the Hispanic community and yet controls 30 state governorships, mostly in the areas where Hispanics come to this country.

    The Democrats (by and large) ignore rural areas and want to write them off as "a different America" (I know I do), yet they control the Presidency and a majority in the US Senate.
    Obama has done quite well in some rural areas (he won IOWA if I remember correctly... and wins 25-35% of rural voters. Without that he doesn't win the popular vote. Or for that matter Virginia Florida Colorado. and likely the whole election. All votes count. I just think they should all count equally.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,107
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Obama has done quite well in some rural areas (he won IOWA if I remember correctly... and wins 25-35% of rural voters. Without that he doesn't win the popular vote. Or for that matter Virginia Florida Colorado. and likely the whole election. All votes count. I just think they should all count equally.
    Obama won the state because he won the urban areas of Iowa. Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Sioux City, Iowa City, etc.. He got almost entirely swept on the western side of the state:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/iowa
    Member of the Owlluminati!


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    35,319
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by nymetsrule View Post
    Because a popular vote would screw over the people in places with very little population. The electoral college gives those **** states with 500,000 people in them a say. In a popular vote scenario, candidates would only concentrate their campaigning in places like NYC or LA or Chicago. They'd have no reason to bother with rural America.
    Those **** states with 500,000 people get electoral votes proportional to their size. Candidates pander to the states that push them into the range to have enough electoral votes to win - what difference does it make if the candidate panders to areas which hold a larger segment of the nation?

    And a one person, one vote system makes your vote truly matter as opposed to in states such as Illinois where much of the state feels alienated as Chicago dictates how the state votes.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    35,319
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by homestarunner93 View Post
    I'm confused, how exactly would Illinois **** that up?

    And I should clarify what my proposition was. Count electoral votes by Congressional district, plus whoever wins the popular vote of the entire state gets 2 electoral votes. Is this a perfect system? Not really, but I think it's probably the best things states can do. Moving to a pure popular vote system creates as many problems as it solves.
    Say Illinois gets 20 electoral votes. The northeast corner of the state pretty much dictates how the state votes now. Depending on how lawmakers were to distribute those votes, it's not unimaginable that our legislation would assign 5 votes to each of 4 "quadrants" in Illinois. Where something like 75% of the population lies may only make up 25% of the vote.

    That's not fair at all.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,107
    vCash
    1500
    I am not unilaterally opposed to the idea of popular representation but if you are going to have states that tend to vote Democratic have popular representation and the ones that tend to vote GOP electorally represented, then I think you face a Constitutional issue because not everyone is being equally represented. What you have there is just a scheme to steal votes for the GOP and not a concern over equal representation. Otherwise, the laws that govern all-or-nothing states would be unfair.

    If the GOP thought this was really about equal representation, why aren't they pushing this in states they have held with a stranglehold for years? Why doesn't Texas have this scheme so it can better represent its constituents? Why doesn't Mississippi have this scheme? Why doesn't Idaho have this scheme? Why doesn't State X, Y, or Z have this scheme? Because its nothing more than an attempt to steer national races back to the GOP like they have already gerrymandered the local races to do. The House Democrats received a million vote more votes than the House GOP but they House GOP beat the House Dems by 30 votes for the very simple reason that you have uber-gerrymandered districts. The GOP can't win a fair fight and they want to cheat and claw their way into power by using the 2010 electoral victories to do so.
    Member of the Owlluminati!


  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,397
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    . . . The GOP can't win a fair fight and they want to cheat and claw their way into power by using the 2010 electoral victories to do so.
    Gotta give the GOP its props for finding a way to leverage an election. and finding a way to avoid changing their beliefs in order to get elected. A clever way to stay relevant and radical at the same time.

    This would seem to be a good short term fix that could/will end up being a long term detriment to the party.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,107
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    Gotta give the GOP its props for finding a way to leverage an election. and finding a way to avoid changing their beliefs in order to get elected. A clever way to stay relevant and radical at the same time.

    This would seem to be a good short term fix that could/will end up being a long term detriment to the party.
    Yes, they are very innovative when it comes to pretending to care about all people being represented and not really giving two ***** about anything more than their own electoral chances. Kudos to them on that one.

    I would love to see someone who supports the GOP tell me why these GOP representatives that recently got control of moderate or blue states are enacting these legislative efforts to gerrymander and change their electoral college voting while the GOP representatives that have controlled strong-red states for decades have somehow made no progress on these reforms. Unless they are aware that their representation is doing nothing but trying to give voice to their minority while simultaneously silencing the minority that they don't want to hear from. I can't anyone seriously who can live with that hypocrisy.
    Member of the Owlluminati!


  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,932
    vCash
    1500
    this idea would be fine if districts were re-aligned to properly reflect population densities.
    right now many of he states that hold bicameral republican control,have redistricted minority population centers to dilute their effectiveness in voting. this is criminal IMO.

    We should have a every vote counts systen that completely eliminates the electoral college.
    That would send participation soaring,and all this regional focus would have less of an impact.
    STORK WAS RIGHT!
    Mcfadden is useless

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •