• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

  • Total voters
    23
Paschendale said:
I said counties, not congressional districts. I shouldn't have assumed that merely because they are usually conflated, that they always are. Presidential elections are usually divied up by county, and a straight 1 to 1 conversion from congressional districts to electoral votes wouldn't work since each state has 2 extra votes.

The point that anything besides a straight popular vote is attempting to make some votes count more than others still stands.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you mean. What exactly does it mean that Presidential elections are divided by county? County has nothing to do with it, other than perhaps the administration of the polling place staff is administered by that level. If you are referring to the USA Today map by county, that is just for their own convenience to draw maps at that level, they could have done ZIP Code or any other Census segment.

Today, Presidential elections are about electoral votes. You may want it to change, but it isn't. My Congressperson and your Congressperson have the same number of votes and the number of people they represent are reasonably similar.

If it were about counties, then 1 county=1 vote would be as you describe--votes counting different amounts. Based on congressional districts, the urban/rural distinction is meaningless.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Actaually Maine and Nebraska already do this. I would prefer it actually with a twist. Take a look at how Iowa does their redistricting. It quite inovative and very fair and quite frankly ought to be the model that should be followed by all the states.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Lu04A4&usg=AFQjCNFcF4tifUiIwnXC2zxthH5Lg40ErQ

If my state of California redistricted like Iowa does then I would be just fine with allocating elctorial votes according to district and award the overall winner the two congresional electorial votes. In fact I would prefer the system.
Click to expand...

I actually like this idea. Find a way to redistrict in a more equitable manner rather than one clearly politically tainted, award the majority of electoral votes via each individual district, and allow the two additional ones to go to the over all winner thus making winning the state still a useful thing.
 
Anagram said:
That's probably not true. They just won a popular vote presidential election in 2004, and won the 2010 popular vote by a relatively wide margin. There's no reason they cannot adjust themselves and win presidential elections in the future, just as the two parties have for the last 140 years.
Click to expand...

They have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. They are now a regional party of the South and the midwest. Can they win in off years when the voter turnout is low? Sure, in some areas. But we don't elect Presidents in off years.
 
clownboy said:
The President has NEVER been elected by popular vote. And republicans win elections based upon the popular vote all the time. Most of the statehouses, where the popular vote is king, are republican majority.
Click to expand...

Maybe if I put it in all CAPS, people will understand. THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WITH THE CURRENT RULES IN PLACE. And the demographics are only going to get worse for them. The solution? Split the electoral votes in the blue states and keep those solid red states the same.
 
Wiggen said:
They have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. They are now a regional party of the South and the midwest. Can they win in off years when the voter turnout is low? Sure, in some areas. But we don't elect Presidents in off years.
Click to expand...

1860-1880: Democrats lost the popular vote in 5 of 6 elections.
1932-1948: Republicans lost popular vote in all 5 elections.
1968-1988: Democrats lost popular vote in 5 of 6 elections, including 4 heavy landslides.

And yet here both parties are, still legitimately competitive year in and year out.
 
Anagram said:
1860-1880: Democrats lost the popular vote in 5 of 6 elections.
1932-1948: Republicans lost popular vote in all 5 elections.
1968-1988: Democrats lost popular vote in 5 of 6 elections, including 4 heavy landslides.

And yet here both parties are, still legitimately competitive year in and year out.
Click to expand...

I have three words for you. Demographics, democraphics, and demographics. The Republicans continue to lose the minority vote by larger and larger margins and minority voters as a percentage of the electorate grow larger and larger. As long as the TeaPublicans are the party of opposition, that trend will continue. The only hopes the TeaPublicans have is to increase their voter suppression efforts, which failed miserably in spite of their best efforts this time, or to change the rules.
 
Wiggen said:
I have three words for you. Demographics, democraphics, and demographics. The Republicans continue to lose the minority vote by larger and larger margins and minority voters as a percentage of the electorate grow larger and larger. As long as the TeaPublicans are the party of opposition, that trend will continue. The only hopes the TeaPublicans have is to increase their voter suppression efforts, which failed miserably in spite of their best efforts this time, or to change the rules.
Click to expand...

Demographics caused those other three steaks as well. The party will adjust to the changing demographics just as it always has.
 
Doubtful - unless you can describe to me how the TeaPublicans, who are anti minority and anti gay and anti immigrants, are going to adjust to the demographics. They can't. It's an impossibility. If they adjust, they're no longer TeaPublicans.

and I would disagree with you that the other streaks were caused by demographics. They were caused by policy. The Republicans dominated from 1968 on because the Democrats lost the South with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
 
Wiggen said:
Doubtful - unless you can describe to me how the TeaPublicans, who are anti minority and anti gay and anti immigrants, are going to adjust to the demographics. They can't. It's an impossibility. If they adjust, they're no longer TeaPublicans.

and I would disagree with you that the other streaks were caused by demographics. They were caused by policy. The Republicans dominated from 1968 on because the Democrats lost the South with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

Well policy caused certain demographic groups to vote one way or another just as they do now. Demographics are shifting, accordingly Republicans will change their policy to remain competitive. Republicans don't have to completely change what they are, as their fiscal policies remain, relatively popular.

And Republicans are attempting to adjust already by playing down social issues. Some of them are relenting on the hardline immigration policies they have supported in the past. Believe me, it will happen. The Democrats will not become the dominant party. Although you should be happy with the position they are in right now, it isn't going to last forever, or even for the next decade most likely.
 
BigRedChief said:
Several battleground states have Republican parties firmly in control of the state congress's are deciding, proposing legislation to not award all the EC votes to the winner but by congressional district.

The issues that I see with this new development

  • Gerrymandering of districts has made a mockery of fairness in the states.
  • Will create a constitutional crisis at some point and violence in the streets.


How would this effect the election? I'll let someone else post all the numbers. But, here's an example from what the Republican senate did in Virgina. Obama won the election in the state, But due to gerrymandering, Romeny would have been given 9 EC votes and Obama 4 EC votes.
Click to expand...

I just verified this is being worked on in my state as we speak; assigning future Electoral College delegates to each voter's specific congressional district. Not sure how the extra 2 delegate assignments will be handled.
 
Smeagol said:
I just verified this is being worked on in my state as we speak; assigning future Electoral College delegates to each voter's specific congressional district. Not sure how the extra 2 delegate assignments will be handled.
Click to expand...

I believe those would go to the overall winner of the state, just like in Maine and Nebraska already.
 
Anagram said:
Well policy caused certain demographic groups to vote one way or another just as they do now. Demographics are shifting, accordingly Republicans will change their policy to remain competitive. Republicans don't have to completely change what they are, as their fiscal policies remain, relatively popular.

And Republicans are attempting to adjust already by playing down social issues. Some of them are relenting on the hardline immigration policies they have supported in the past. Believe me, it will happen. The Democrats will not become the dominant party. Although you should be happy with the position they are in right now, it isn't going to last forever, or even for the next decade most likely.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely delighted by the position the TeaPublicans find themselves in today, because it will only continue until - like the Whigs - they wither away to be replaced by something else. Oh, they'll hang on in places like the south and in the mostly all-white midwest for a while. They may even continue to have success in off-year elections. But as a national party capable of winning a Presidential election and actually governing, they're done.

They lack both the balls and the intelligence to change.
 
Smeagol said:
I just verified this is being worked on in my state as we speak; assigning future Electoral College delegates to each voter's specific congressional district. Not sure how the extra 2 delegate assignments will be handled.
Click to expand...

Let me guess - you live in a state with a Republican governor, Republican House and Senate, and a state that was won by Obama in the popular vote. Go figure!
 
Wiggen said:
I am absolutely delighted by the position the TeaPublicans find themselves in today, because it will only continue until - like the Whigs - they wither away to be replaced by something else. Oh, they'll hang on in places like the south and in the mostly all-white midwest for a while. They may even continue to have success in off-year elections. But as a national party capable of winning a Presidential election and actually governing, they're done.

They lack both the balls and the intelligence to change.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. There have been plenty of points during the last few years where Republicans could've won a national election. There is just about a zero percent chance the Republicans fade away and are replaced by something else.
 
Wiggen said:
Let me guess - you live in a state with a Republican governor, Republican House and Senate, and a state that was won by Obama in the popular vote. Go figure!
Click to expand...

Yep.

I'm really torn. I don't like these kind of tricks but I also wasn't happy to hear the news that ladies will now being sent to the front lines in military combat. What troubles me more; policies I don't like or political tactics I don't like?

I also don't think for a minute this GOP move has anything at all to do with a commitment to the principle of doing the right thing. If the parties were reversed I'm willing to bet the same GOP trying to change the rules in their favor would be screaming bloody murder if te democrats tried what they're pulling. I also think if the parties were reversed and the democrats were facing national office extinction, they might try the same stunt. The difference for me is I EXPECT the GOP to take the high road and do the right and moral thing. I don't expect the same of the democrats. Being the party of integrity, morality, etc. is why I joined the GOP in the first place. Now it seems to be about keeping millionaires as rich possible through tax policy, consumer exploitation, wage and benefits suppression, deregulation and shipping jobs to the third world. Then justifying disturbing political tactics by saying the democrats are just as unethical so it's fair.
 
Anagram said:
I think you're wrong. There have been plenty of points during the last few years where Republicans could've won a national election. There is just about a zero percent chance the Republicans fade away and are replaced by something else.
Click to expand...
If the r's continue to lose Latinos 70/30, Texas goes purple in 2020 maybe 2016. Then they really are on life support.

Off topic........... Big Cardinals fan. My son is a 5th generation Cardinal fan.
 
Gerrymandering has been common as horse turds past and present. However the 2000 election decided by SCOTUS is an egregrious example of lengths that Republicans will go to to have their candidate installed in office. On the surreptitious side, the words of Anonymous following our recent election need more attention. The evidentiary trail of our current process of electronic elections is like a handfull of mercury.
 
DaveFagan said:
Gerrymandering has been common as horse turds past and present. However the 2000 election decided by SCOTUS is an egregrious example of lengths that Republicans will go to to have their candidate installed in office. On the surreptitious side, the words of Anonymous following our recent election need more attention. The evidentiary trail of our current process of electronic elections is like a handfull of mercury.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of the United States doing its job is an example of a political party rigging the election? I'm hearing echoes of "Corrupt Bargain" again...only it's not 1824.
 
Fiddytree said:
The Supreme Court of the United States doing its job is an example of a political party rigging the election? I'm hearing echoes of "Corrupt Bargain" again...only it's not 1824.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. They were in the middle of a recount of paper ballots. Pretty easy stuff to hang on to. You can get a real grip on it. Not like that mercury. And you thnk the SCOTUS is better than a paper ballot?
 
DaveFagan said:
I don't agree. They were in the middle of a recount of paper ballots. Pretty easy stuff to hang on to. You can get a real grip on it. Not like that mercury. And you thnk the SCOTUS is better than a paper ballot?
Click to expand...

It was an interpretive job with those ballots, and frankly, no I do not believe your controversy would have died down at all. I support the Court in its decision to cut it off right then and there.
 
BigRedChief said:
Several battleground states have Republican parties firmly in control of the state congress's are deciding, proposing legislation to not award all the EC votes to the winner but by congressional district.

The issues that I see with this new development

  • Gerrymandering of districts has made a mockery of fairness in the states.
  • Will create a constitutional crisis at some point and violence in the streets.


How would this effect the election? I'll let someone else post all the numbers. But, here's an example from what the Republican senate did in Virgina. Obama won the election in the state, But due to gerrymandering, Romeny would have been given 9 EC votes and Obama 4 EC votes.
Click to expand...

Considering the questionable voting practices allowed to go on in Ohio and Pennsyvania, laws definitely need to be modified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom