GOP Can't Win Honestly; Time to Cheat

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I don't care about any of those issues.

This is what we should all be concerned about, Santorum et al and their belief in social interference.

So your big concern is a guy that hasn't held office for 6 years?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

So your big concern is a guy that hasn't held office for 6 years?

Yeah, that's it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Here's a newsflash, neither side gives a damn about the will of the people.

On some level that's true. They care more deeply about those who give them money, that's for sure. On the other hand, what the GOP is saying, by their actions, is that elections don't matter. Obama and Romney held a national argument on very specific issues for over a year. The people elected Obama by a wide margin. Now the GOP will do whatever it takes to block the implementation of any of those issues. What kind of governance is that? It only counts if we win?

[nyuk nyuk]

This is one of those WTF threads

[elsid13]

The Virginia State Senate proposal appears be dead on arrival. Both the Governor and two of the top Republican State Senator have come out against the plan. McDonnell been feeling the political pressure from Northern Virgina, and the two Republican are eying a run for the governorship next election are afraid of the money backlash if they go forward with this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z3

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

BS,will of the people is decided by the majority,not by a minority simply because they are more spread out.

I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Arkie

I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

Anytime you rely on arbitrary geographic separation, you will get gerrymandering. The current practice of all or nothing (going all the way back to the very first election under the Constitution) also has flaws, but at least it's congruent with the intent of the founders (that intent being that the states elect the president, not the people).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The next four years will see the repukes searching for new ways to disenfranchise non-white voters who live outside the cracker belt.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Arkie

I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

The minority,as in population,shouldn't decide who gets elected. Going by district would do just that,if a state has 20 districts with 1 million in 8 districts & 1,000 living in the 12 remaining districts. You'd have a minority deciding the election. It's not right no matter how you slice it.

[ZONA]

If you ask me, states can do what they want for the elections of their state governor, senators, representatives, etc.

But the Presidency, IMO, should be by popular vote of the people regardless of state. 1 person, 1 vote. Who ever wins the most votes is president. Say what you want but the Electoral College is stupid and inconsistent. 27 states have laws on the books that require electors to vote for their party's candidate even if they don't want to. 24 states have no such law. Of all the 400 and some electors, 100 of them are senators. Why should their vote count more then a hard working mother of 3 that has 2 jobs, or a retired vet who lost use of his legs from a war.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The minority,as in population,shouldn't decide who gets elected. Going by district would do just that,if a state has 20 districts with 1 million in 8 districts & 1,000 living in the 12 remaining districts. You'd have a minority deciding the election. It's not right no matter how you slice it.

Yep. It's just a trick to put the rural vote (which tends to go red) above the metropolitan vote (which tends to go the other way). The GOP got stuck in their "Southern Strategy" and now they want to figure out some scam to bail them out so they can stick with their backward dogma and yet still win elections.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The minority,as in population,shouldn't decide who gets elected. Going by district would do just that,if a state has 20 districts with 1 million in 8 districts & 1,000 living in the 12 remaining districts. You'd have a minority deciding the election. It's not right no matter how you slice it.

It wouldn't be that extreme. A state like that would have 3 electors and 1 would go to the state itself. That hypothetical state would go 2-1 to the majority. The will of the people have spoken, and we are still guarding one part of society against the the other part.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Arkie

It wouldn't be that extreme. A state like that would have 3 electors and 1 would go to the state itself. That hypothetical state would go 2-1 to the majority. The will of the people have spoken, and we are still guarding one part of society against the the other part.

Really,no one gets heard when the majority is ignored.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Arkie

It wouldn't be that extreme. A state like that would have 3 electors and 1 would go to the state itself. That hypothetical state would go 2-1 to the majority. The will of the people have spoken, and we are still guarding one part of society against the the other part.

It would be that extreme,because that is the actual intent of what they are trying to do.

[Arkie]

It hasn't been that extreme in the two states that already do this. An electoral vote has strayed from the majority of those states only once, and I thought Obama deserved the one vote from Nebraska in 2008. Don't you?

[Play2win]

How soon before whites become the new minority?

[That One Guy]

States are too populous to do winner take all. I think it shouldn't be a 1 person/1 vote popular election as that requires everyone to vote but marginalizes them at the same time. It's just too large of a pool. If they did votes awarded by county, you'd have small enough groups that everyone would get represented. A large, populous county would obviously have more votes to cast than a smaller county but at least a smaller county would feel it worthwhile to vote. I've been a resident of Washington State since I turned 18 and it's never been worth it to even bother registering to vote. That can't be the intent of the process.

Also, I'm also in line to hear how an established practice in one state is an attempt at cheating in another. Funny how those responses are getting ignored.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Drunk idiot kicker

How soon before whites become the new minority?

Which would you rather be - a passenger on the Mayflower or the captain of the Titanic?

People keep talking about minorities taking over the country but seeing as they can't, in many cases, effectively run their own communities - I don't really see them being ready to take the reigns of the country as a whole.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The next four years will see the repukes searching for new ways to disenfranchise non-white voters who live outside the cracker belt.

Is this stuff really acceptable? Is it time to embrace racial slurs just to shine light on the double standard?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

States are too populous to do winner take all. I think it shouldn't be a 1 person/1 vote popular election as that requires everyone to vote but marginalizes them at the same time. It's just too large of a pool. If they did votes awarded by county, you'd have small enough groups that everyone would get represented. A large, populous county would obviously have more votes to cast than a smaller county but at least a smaller county would feel it worthwhile to vote. I've been a resident of Washington State since I turned 18 and it's never been worth it to even bother registering to vote. That can't be the intent of the process.

Also, I'm also in line to hear how an established practice in one state is an attempt at cheating in another. Funny how those responses are getting ignored.

If you don't vote cause as you say it's not worth it then that's your problem.
What's going on here is that conservatives are realizing that they are becoming a minority in the country,and rather than changing with the times,they are trying to rig it so they can stay in power.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Which would you rather be - a passenger on the Mayflower or the captain of the Titanic?

People keep talking about minorities taking over the country but seeing as they can't, in many cases, effectively run their own communities - I don't really see them being ready to take the reigns of the country as a whole.

you've posted some pretty ignorant **** in the past,but this one takes the cake.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

If you don't vote cause as you say it's not worth it then that's your problem.
What's going on here is that conservatives are realizing that they are becoming a minority in the country,and rather than changing with the times,they are trying to rig it so they can stay in power.

I guarantee you my vote would not sway the state of Washington into red territory.

The rest is just repeating what has been repeated numerous times through the thread. You just typed for no reason.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

you've posted some pretty ignorant **** in the past,but this one takes the cake.

So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

So you disagree? If the white men stepped aside tomorrow, the country would be perfectly fine?

The country would be just fine regardless of the color/ethnicity of its leaders. I disagree with the idea that color/ethnicity dictates one ability to lead.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Arkie

I see the point you and Ro are making. (The GOP is focusing on states that would help them by gaining red districts in blue states.) But it would go both ways if all states awarded votes to districts. The black districts in the deep south would have their voices heard, as would the Hispanics in Texas. The will of the people should reflect the urban areas in red states everywhere, not just Omaha.

In theory you are correct, but the way the State Legislatures are "drawing" the congressional distracts, there is purpose attempt to disfranchise urban voters. See examples in Missouri (http://fox2now.com/2012/05/25/missou...ting-decision/) and Texas (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...blican-leaders)