Galatia Forums

In case you haven't seen this, it's pretty meesed up!

"On Wednesday, Virginia became the latest state to take up a Republican scheme that would change the way states award their Electoral College votes. Under the plan, which passed a Senate subcommittee on a party line vote, the state would award one electoral vote to the winner of each of its 11 congressional districts. Virginia’s remaining two electoral votes would go to the candidate who won more congressional districts."

Basically, that means that the popular vote no longer matters. If for example you have a state where 90% of the people are located in 2 districts (say 2 big cities) and they all vote for president A, but the rest 10% of the people are located in 8 other districts (say farmers), and they vote for president B, then president A only gets 2 electoral votes, while president B gets 8. That's makes the popular vote irrelevant!

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/24/the-gops ... -the-game/

That's not how districts are proportioned. The Supreme Court ruled that you have to have districts equally proportioned so that each representative is representing close to the same number of people. That's why some districts are so small and other so huge (the eastern shore doesn't even make up a full district for example). That said, yeah, it's a pretty transparent power grab by Republicans. It is, however, completely constitutional.

I learned something new today. Thanks Fritz =)

Umm, That just happened in MD costing Roscoe Bartlett (R) his district. And Ron Paul in TX, but that was Republican on Republican. And If I recall correctly, I live in the "Salamander", the second most messed up district. Wish I lived in "Abe Lincoln Riding A Broom".

Link with pictures: (note: I wrote the top, and then googled most gerrymandered districts, picked the first. Humorous we both think the salamaner is #2. MAryland shows up a lot)
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/th ... ted-states

The difference between what Maryland did and what Virginia is considering is just a matter of degrees. Virginia and Maryland are both gerrymandered to a ridiculous degree. Virginia is now taking it to the presidential level. District proportioning of electoral votes is not a new thing, but it is fairly rare. As of now only 2 states use district allocations (Maine is one and I can't remember the other). The two statewide electorss going to whoever won the most districts is new though. Most district allocation plans give those votes to the popular vote winner. In any case, it's a very clear power play based on an archaic and outdated system of electing a president. Just kill the electoral college already.

http://wh.gov/yd76

Because this shit be stupid.

Umm, I oppose the Direct Popular Vote. It disenfranchises low population states. As it is Romney and Obama only campainged in 8 states. Districting is fine when the districts make sense, say, based on county lines. The problem is gerrymandering not the electoral college.

Actually the more I read, the more I like the congressional district method; albeit with one major change, the state can not be a winner-takes-all state. I think this model more directly reflects what the framers intended.

MorGrendel wrote:Umm, I oppose the Direct Popular Vote. It disenfranchises low population states. As it is Romney and Obama only campainged in 8 states. Districting is fine when the districts make sense, say, based on county lines. The problem is gerrymandering not the electoral college.

And low population states get attention now? I don't buy the "disenfranchises low population states." The Senate already gives smaller states plenty of influence. Why does their vote for president need to count for more as well? The electoral college disenfrancises higher population states. A individual vote for president in Alaska is worth almost two and a half times more than a Marylander's vote. I don't see why that is necessary.

MorGrendel wrote:Actually the more I read, the more I like the congressional district method; albeit with one major change, the state can not be a winner-takes-all state. I think this model more directly reflects what the framers intended.

The district method sounds nice in theory, but it reflects the will of the people even worse than the current winner take all method. The intent of the framers is irrevelant. They didn't want the people voting for the president at all. The first popular vote wasn't even done until Andrew Jackson's first attempt at running for office.

Fritz wrote:And low population states get attention now? I don't buy the "disenfranchises low population states." The Senate already gives smaller states plenty of influence. Why does their vote for president need to count for more as well? The electoral college disenfrancises higher population states. A individual vote for president in Alaska is worth almost two and a half times more than a Marylander's vote. I don't see why that is necessary.

Marginally yes. In a perfect election, the Electoral Congress requires a canidate to win 11 states, while Direct Popular Vote requires only 9. Yes, less populous states need to count for more and yes the electoral college does disenfrancises higher population states, or more to point urban-centric states. The necessity comes from if you exclude farmers, miners, fishers, roughnecks, and dirty industy workers then the resources that the country needs are in jeopardy. Moreover, this duality is true inside states as well as the values and needs of urban residents are different from the residents in rural areas. It's not fair, I agree. However, the alternative is mob rule, and with the way elections are bought, canidates would be less inclined to work for the benifit of all Americans.

Back to the point at hand, States could (and some have) circumvent the the Electoral College by selecting their electors by Direct Popular Vote. However, it only really works if everone does it, and to this point only Democratic-leaning states have chosen to sign the compact. This could beat gerrymandering, but I would still prefer to see the winner-takes-all rule dissapear. I do not know how negatively this would effect rural voters.

Fritz wrote:The district method sounds nice in theory, but it reflects the will of the people even worse than the current winner take all method.

Why?

Fritz wrote:The intent of the framers is irrevelant. They didn't want the people voting for the president at all. The first popular vote wasn't even done until Andrew Jackson's first attempt at running for office.

Your opinion. The Electoral College was a compromise, not everyone believed in the popular vote, and some people still don't.

Circling this back to the post, it will be interesting to see what happens. Word is the Governer is working with the Dems to bust the bill, but he is unlikely to veto the bill and lose favor with the party. The talk also is he wants the bill killed, not because of the redistricting, but that he needs his transportation project to go through "to cement his legacy" and elevate him to the next level. Supposedly, he was on the short list of Romney VPs, but the bad press over the vaginal ultrasounds made him to dangerous of a choice. Also, it be nice to look up this story and not see a quote from Colbert or Stewart, you know, like real news.

MorGrendel wrote:

Fritz wrote:The district method sounds nice in theory, but it reflects the will of the people even worse than the current winner take all method.

Why?

As you see from Serban's original post, Virigina would have awarded 9 electoral votes to Romney and 4 to Obama even though Obama won the popular vote by a significant margin. Even in a non-fucked up traditional version like Maine, it still would have been 7 for Romney and 5 for Obama. Had the district plan been in place for the entire country, Romney would have won despite losing the popular vote by a full percent. If you go back to the disputed election of 2000, the district plan would have had Bush win by even more despite Gore winning the popular vote.

MorGrendel wrote:

Fritz wrote:The intent of the framers is irrevelant. They didn't want the people voting for the president at all. The first popular vote wasn't even done until Andrew Jackson's first attempt at running for office.

Your opinion. The Electoral College was a compromise, not everyone believed in the popular vote, and some people still don't.

The first sentence is opinion. The second two are fact. There was no popular vote before Jackson's first election and even then it had no influence on the election. The framers never intended to have one. The electoral college was a compromise of state influence (big vs small states) and had nothing to do with a popular vote. We've changed as a country, and I like to think for the better. I don't see how in today's day and age how you can't believe in the popular vote. It's pure democracy with everyone's voice counting equally.

As you see from Serban's original post, Virigina would have awarded 9 electoral votes to Romney and 4 to Obama even though Obama won the popular vote ...

That is correct. However, the issue is gerrymandered disrticts, not the process of using districts. If you are using a system that scales based on population, then the votes must be be divided somehow. Districts make the most sense to me, rather than assigning and winner-takes-all to the person with the most votes. Also, I'm pretty sure that it has happend 4 or 5 times that the Electoral College selected somone other than the popular vote. I can not think of a more fair way to divide districts other than contiguously geographicly by poplation, and so I must trust the state and my elected official to divide the districts fairly.

I don't see how in today's day and age how you can't believe in the popular vote. It's pure democracy with everyone's voice counting equally.

Money wins elections, and I have been told, "corporations are people". I am resigned to say, not all people are equal, and neither are their voices. There were also those people who signed a petition to build a Death Star; I so fear a world with Snooky as President (though she is a minority female). I would prefer politicians to have to see and visit citizens of the entire nation, listen to as many different people in as many states as they can, and be changed by their stories, hardships, and triumphs. I don't want politians to be able to sway heavily populated area, and ignore the rest of America. It easy easy to think low-population states are less important, but they provide a vital role to the nation. A role that will always be under-represented. America is not a democracy, by design, it is a federal constituitional republic.

The system is broken, I do realize that. I won't sway you. A true democracy is a beautiful idea, but so is statehood and the concept of a united states.

MorGrendel wrote: I would prefer politicians to have to see and visit citizens of the entire nation, listen to as many different people in as many states as they can, and be changed by their stories, hardships, and triumphs. I don't want politians to be able to sway heavily populated area, and ignore the rest of America. It easy easy to think low-population states are less important, but they provide a vital role to the nation. A role that will always be under-represented. America is not a democracy, by design, it is a federal constituitional republic.

The system is broken, I do realize that. I won't sway you. A true democracy is a beautiful idea, but so is statehood and the concept of a united states.

Why are heavily populated areas so inferior? If more people live in an area, then why does that area not demand more attention? As of right now, most populated areas are ignored. I don't think lower population states are less important. Heck, Maryland isn't all that big. I think they're as important as an equal number of people in a more densely populated area. Right now a person in a smaller state is MORE important than someone in a bigger state.

Abolishing the electoral college doesn't dimish statehood, or really have any effect on our federal system. The House and the Senate will remain exactly as they are. It is Congress, far more than the electoral college, that is the hallmark of our federal republic and what truly distinguish us from a Parliamentary system. The Presidency, however, is the ONLY office for which every single American can vote. It is the only office which can claim to be elected by the people as a whole. Every voice should count the same.

And no, a 5-4 decision of one of the most heavily conservative Supreme Courts in history will not convince me that "corporations are people."