• 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
I guess it would be misused if left in democratic hands with all that projecting. In case you have not noticed, Virginia has two democratic senators, went for Obama, and has a GOP controlled state, and has never had a voting rights act violation/rejection on one of their proposed election changes. Not everyone is as devious as you--some people actually are not so dyed in the wool partisan.

It went to Obama using popular vote! Using CD's Romney would of won more electorial votes than Obama in the state! Hello!

Senators have nothing to do with CD's...they are statewide elected positions. The GOP controlled state is entirely due to gerrymandering. I live in Florida...where it is essentially 50/50 but leans more Democratic. 70% of our state house and senate was controlled by Republicans....because of gerrymandering! That's the whole point! You can draw CD's to benefit one party or another. Therefore...if you're drawing the districts you can rig elections to go for you! If you base it upon the popular vote in a state it's determined by something you can't manipulate as easily...voters.
 
That's not true at all. Except for farming or mining...which the former needs huge tracts of land and last mentioned is based on where it is not where it is most efficient for production that's just not true.

People go to places for jobs...and the reason they have traveled over time to urban areas is to seek jobs. If there were jobs in rural areas they would no longer be rural! Plants have been built if former small town and have seen huge population booms.

. For example Huntville Alabama was a town in the middle of nowhere. A defense contractor built a plant and R&D firm and the poulation increased 94% in a 10 yera period. A toyota plan was added and the population has doubled in 10 years. Huntville Alabama is soon to be an urban area because people flock there for jobs not because it was already urban.

So you believe that all the profits and wealth in New York City is solely because of the labor of people in Midtown going to the theater and eating $30 hamburgers? :roll:
 
Have you ever been to Denver? I've never been ot Minneapolis or Houston but Denver is gorgeous. It's a very clean nice city.

We've had a conversation on our view of government before and we're pretty set in our ways but I don't agree with you on cities being **** holes.

Yes, I have been to Denver. I was there for a youth conference in August of 1998. Very beautiful city, as are Boston, Atlanta, and many others. However, they are also havens for poverty. Places where the destitute and non-self-sufficient come to leach off of others. That makes them ****-holes so far as I'm concerned.
 
That's not true at all. Except for farming or mining...which the former needs huge tracts of land and last mentioned is based on where it is not where it is most efficient for production that's just not true.

People go to places for jobs...and the reason they have traveled over time to urban areas is to seek jobs. If there were jobs in rural areas they would no longer be rural! Plants have been built if former small town and have seen huge population booms.

. For example Huntville Alabama was a town in the middle of nowhere. A defense contractor built a plant and R&D firm and the poulation increased 94% in a 10 yera period. A toyota plan was added and the population has doubled in 10 years. Huntville Alabama is soon to be an urban area because people flock there for jobs not because it was already urban.

And without the farming and mining there is no supply for those plants, those people to operate them and thus no urban centers. But a good description of the corruption process. You missed an intermediary step - urban sprawl. It happens because the folks don't really want to live like that, but they need to live close enough to commute to work. Then it decays and the blight solidifies and the area becomes fully urban. The job center finally dies and the urban center decays further. The folks who can flee to the suburbs (decaying themselves). Wait a couple generations and the city populations don't know any other way of life. They start thinking their food comes from the grocery store.

Urban centers are not sustainable on their own.
 
It went to Obama using popular vote! Using CD's Romney would of won more electorial votes than Obama in the state! Hello!

Senators have nothing to do with CD's...they are statewide elected positions. The GOP controlled state is entirely due to gerrymandering. I live in Florida...where it is essentially 50/50 but leans more Democratic. 70% of our state house and senate was controlled by Republicans....because of gerrymandering! That's the whole point! You can draw CD's to benefit one party or another. Therefore...if you're drawing the districts you can rig elections to go for you! If you base it upon the popular vote in a state it's determined by something you can't manipulate as easily...voters.

You are just upset that the democrats may have lost this one election. If the rules were changed, the campaigns would adapt and there is no way to know what the outcome would have been. You are all up in partisan politics and ignoring that Virginia went to Obama, elected the GOP candidates to the top of the state offices, and then elected Obama and Kaine. The facts do not mesh with what you are saying as to that state trying to engage in partisan abuse. There are blue CD's and red CD's because of rural vs. urban, but they do not have modern snakey gerrymandered lines and I have seen no indication that the GOP is trying to redraw them to create a bunch of new GOP safe seats. At worst, the state is trying to give both campaigns reason to continue to campaign there because as a newby "swing state" they liked all the money they got from the stepped up advertising and campaign visits and the like, and want to keep the Benjamins rolling in.

EDIT: BTW, in case you did not notice, this is a continuation of the system that only left Mitt and Ron Paul on teh GOP ticket and Ron Paul had his best showing ever. I think he was somewhere in the 40% range
 
Last edited:
That is exactly the Republican plan. They know they can't win by actually getting more votes, considering the previously mentioned hateful positions towards nearly everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual, Christian male. So they're trying to make their votes count for more.



That's not even a little bit true. Rural districts have WAY fewer people in them than urban ones. Seven New York counties compose half the state's population, and the other fifty-five the other half. That's three cities, NYC, Rochester, and Buffalo. Many cities comprise a single county, while a large rural area may have a tenth as many people and be divided into several counties. This is nothing but a move to make those mostly empty rural districts count for more than the dense urban ones.

There is absolutely no reason to muck about with electoral votes and winning states. No state population is homogeneous, so no candidate can win by appealing to the interests of one state over another, since states don't really have different interests like that. The only fair system is a direct popular vote. Every person counts the same, and nobody needs to care about where they live.

Since you are ignorant of how Congressional districts are sized, here is a nice chart of all the New York Congressional Districts and their population and variance from the target (717,707).

Center for Urban Research - 2010 Census population for NYS legislative districts and Congress

The 23-NY which I think anyone would consider to be rural has 664,245. The 15-NY which on Manhattan has 639,673.

Pick another state and I'll show you are wrong there too.
 
You are just upset that the democrats may have lost this one election.

No..I'm upset because it's something added that is even further away from 1 person 1 vote than we even currently have! It's another level added that can be manipulated by partisan hackary. If Republicans win because they have more votes than the country spoke. If Democrats win because they had more votes then the country spoke. If Republicans or Democrats win because of lines drawn on a map every 10 years while losing the popular vote it's partisan hackary.

You are all up in partisan politics and ignoring that Virginia went to Obama, elected the GOP candidates to the top of the state offices, and then elected Obama and Kaine. The facts do not mesh with what you are saying as to that state trying to engage in partisan abuse.

The absolutely do support what I'm saying. Statewide elections like President and Senators went to Democrats. More Democratic voters showed up to the polls, the majority of voters in the election were Democrats. The state seats went to Republicans DESPITE! more Democratic voters. The election shows that state seats based on Congressional Districts does not mirror popular votes in the state of of Virginia.

There are blue CD's and red CD's because of rural vs. urban, but they do not have modern snakey gerrymandered lines and I have seen no indication that the GOP is trying to redraw them to create a bunch of new GOP safe seats. At worst, the state is trying to give both campaigns reason to continue to campaign there because as a newby "swing state" they liked all the money they got from the stepped up advertising and campaign visits and the like, and want to keep the Benjamins rolling in.
The swing state status is based on the state popular vote. It has nothing to do with CD's. If CD's determined the electorial votes in Virginia it would be decidedly red while the majority of voters voted Democrat.

EDIT: BTW, in case you did not notice, this is a continuation of the system that only left Mitt and Ron Paul on teh GOP ticket and Ron Paul had his best showing ever. I think he was somewhere in the 40% range

If you want true 3rd party representation then you should advocate proportional representation and be against our first past the post system. Both are MORE representative of the population not less like the proposed method of using CD's to determine electorial votes.
 
If you equalized congressional districts to be as accurate a reflection of equivalent population so that urban and dense population areas are not slighted, and so that we do not severely alter the possibility of an electoral vs. popular vote winner, I would support this. It would allow a greater level of popular expression in the selection of the President while retaining the safeguards of the electoral college.
 
It is call, redistricting. Gerrymandering is when there is a tortured effort to come up with districts that are clearly phony on a map. (gerrymander is a play on salamander, which is what one particular district in Massachusetts look like).

There is also the assumption that based on party affiliation, state legislatures know how someone is going to vote. The reality is that to some degree, they do.

States can decide how the allocation of their Electoral votes are decided. I like the 1 district, 1 vote method (with 2 statewide votes going to the state majority candidate) much more than the--Candidate A got the majority of the votes in the country, but our state voted in the majority for Candidate B. We agree to go along with the national majority and cast all our votes for Candidate B. That method truly is wrong.

Gerrymandering is defined as "a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts." This is clearly done every census year by both parties.

I don't like the method you mentioned, because it can cause a candidate who received a very small amount of the national vote, to win the election. In 2012 despite losing the popular vote by 4%, Romney would've won the election by 30+ electoral votes. Even though it would've benefited the candidate I supported, that is not something I can agree with.
 
I support the idea. It does away with swing districts/counties. If more people think their vote counts then they are more likely to vote. I thought democrats were all about voting rights for people......guess not really.

In my opinion, it would just change the focus from swing states to swing districts. In fact most people's vote wouldn't count because most congressional districts are designed to favor one of the two parties.
 
And without the farming and mining there is no supply for those plants, those people to operate them and thus no urban centers. But a good description of the corruption process. You missed an intermediary step - urban sprawl. It happens because the folks don't really want to live like that, but they need to live close enough to commute to work. Then it decays and the blight solidifies and the area becomes fully urban. The job center finally dies and the urban center decays further. The folks who can flee to the suburbs (decaying themselves). Wait a couple generations and the city populations don't know any other way of life. They start thinking their food comes from the grocery store.

Urban centers are not sustainable on their own.

I've already mentioned mining and farming. Of course cities can't sustain itself! Nobody made that argument. The argument made was the value created in cities makes up the majority of wealth created in this country. There's nothing that disproves that.
 
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.

That I could support.
 
I've already mentioned mining and farming. Of course cities can't sustain itself! Nobody made that argument. The argument made was the value created in cities makes up the majority of wealth created in this country. There's nothing that disproves that.

But again, without what the rural provides the urban can create no value to make up wealth. The reverse is not true however, rural areas can be self-sustaining.
 
But again, without what the rural provides the urban can create no value to make up wealth. The reverse is not true however, rural areas can be self-sustaining.

Sure....rural areas can be self-sustaining as they were for centuries. You seem to be wanting to claim one is "better" than another. As if the fact we could all be subsistence farmers threading our own clothes and bartering in a township proves some superiority. Large scale production requires large numbers of people. Large supply chains are more efficient when grouped together. The urbanization of the US occured at the same time as the industrialization of the US.

One is not superior to another or has any added morality or some nonesense. I stated that urban areas are the main centers for the creation of wealth...because they are! They always have been! Since man first started grouping together in cities they have been the main engine for the advancement of civilization!
 
Sure....rural areas can be self-sustaining as they were for centuries. You seem to be wanting to claim one is "better" than another. As if the fact we could all be subsistence farmers threading our own clothes and bartering in a township proves some superiority. Large scale production requires large numbers of people. Large supply chains are more efficient when grouped together. The urbanization of the US occured at the same time as the industrialization of the US.

One is not superior to another or has any added morality or some nonesense. I stated that urban areas are the main centers for the creation of wealth...because they are! They always have been! Since man first started grouping together in cities they have been the main engine for the advancement of civilization!

Well, since I'm speaking from my own views, one IS superior, because it can sustain itself. But on balance the problem lies when the rural wanes in strength and the urban rules. Long term success of the society relies on a strong rural element. Erode that and the urban gradually (and sometimes not so gradually) decays and the society collapses.

It should be noted that we have urbanized to the very zenith of our rural sector's ability to support at a time when our rural sector is rapidly declining. In other words, the canary in the mine has gone silent.
 
Well, since I'm speaking from my own views, one IS superior, because it can sustain itself. But on balance the problem lies when the rural wanes in strength and the urban rules. Long term success of the society relies on a strong rural element. Erode that and the urban gradually (and sometimes not so gradually) decays and the society collapses.

It should be noted that we have urbanized to the very zenith of our rural sector's ability to support at a time when our rural sector is rapidly declining. In other words, the canary in the mine has gone silent.

In what way? Where people chose to live or how they grouped are a result of economic factors moreso than anything else. Large agricultural farms have replaced individual farming. It's efficient and has led to the highest increase in agricultural output per acre than ever in the history of mankind. "Rural" mining areas boom and bust based upon minerals found and prices. This idea that there's some morale depravity or failure of a civilization because of them grouping is just not correct. Chinese civilization have been grouped in massive cities on their coasts for thousands of years. Their civilization is still going strong.

The nostalgia over rural areas is just tradition based wariness of change. My family grew up on farms (parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc). All their children live in urban areas because that's where the jobs are. There's no moral decay, no loss of anything besides the ability to have a big cheap house with more property.
 
In what way? Where people chose to live or how they grouped are a result of economic factors moreso than anything else. Large agricultural farms have replaced individual farming. It's efficient and has led to the highest increase in agricultural output per acre than ever in the history of mankind. "Rural" mining areas boom and bust based upon minerals found and prices. This idea that there's some morale depravity or failure of a civilization because of them grouping is just not correct. Chinese civilization have been grouped in massive cities on their coasts for thousands of years. Their civilization is still going strong.

Last point first, that's not accurate. Though the Chinese did establish large cities and maintained them for centuries, they also kept a larger rural sector to support those cities.

I didn't address any sort of moral corruption, though, with more time on their hands city dwellers generally fall prey more easily to the idle hands being the devil's workshop thing. But that's just my two cents and not at all meant as authoritative.

And finally, the first point is devastatingly incorrect. Though we have reached a high point in yield per acre, we do so by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The petro-based fertilizers we use leech nitrogen (among other things) into the streams and rivers, then into the ocean. This chokes out the native fish species, and in some cases creates huge dead zones in the ocean. So an important food source is compromised and we NEED to get even more from our farming operations to make up. More fertilizer - more dead zones, less fish - more fertilzer necessary. Rinse, repeat.

Not to mention we've totally forgotten the lessons of the dust bowl and even worse doubled down on the area, population and farming wise. It's about time historically for that drought cycle to hit again like the early 30s.

These are just a couple of the problems, and there are many.

The nostalgia over rural areas is just tradition based wariness of change. My family grew up on farms (parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc). All their children live in urban areas because that's where the jobs are. There's no moral decay, no loss of anything besides the ability to have a big cheap house with more property.

When you lose track of how the things you rely upon to survive on a daily basis are grown and manufactured, you guarantee your own eventual doom as a society. Large rural areas are required for the urban areas to survive. Continuing to have a large rural sector isn't nostalgia but survival.
 
Last point first, that's not accurate. Though the Chinese did establish large cities and maintained them for centuries, they also kept a larger rural sector to support those cities.

Due to inefficient methods of farming comparative to what we have now. They have had large urban areas for thousands of years. Those urban areas were the center of their civilization just as in the Western world it's Athen, Rome, Paris, London etc that were the center of Western civilization. There's nothing about urbanization that leads to civilization decay. It's the opposite.

I didn't address any sort of moral corruption, though, with more time on their hands city dwellers generally fall prey more easily to the idle hands being the devil's workshop thing. But that just my two cents and not at all meant as authoritative.
Well I disagree they have more time on their hands....when the majority of individuals were farming in rural areas the majority of individuals in industrial town were pulling 14 hour + shifts.

And finally, the first point is devastatingly incorrect. Though we have reached a high point in yield per acre, we do so by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The petro-based fertilizers we use leech nitrogen (among other things) into the streams and rivers, then into the ocean. This chokes out the native fish species, and in some cases creates huge dead zones in the ocean. So an important food source is compromised and we NEED to get even more from our farming operations to make up.
Sure...I'll give you that but it's not incorrect. Do you honestly think that people eat more if their grouped together? That food output would have to be less if people lived in rural areas? In fact I'd argue the opposite, people would need more calories to farm their own food.

Not to mention we've totally forgotten the lessons of the dust bowl and even worse doubled down on the area population and farming wise. It's about time historically for that drought cycle to hit again like the early 30s.

Sure...and what was the impact on a much more rural nation? It doesn't matter where anybody lives. If the midwest dustbowl situation occures it will have a huge impact.

When you lose track of how the things you rely upon to survive on a daily basis are grown and manufactured, you guarantee your own eventual doom as a society. Large rural areas are required for the urban areas to survive. Continuing to have a large rural sector isn't nostalgia but survival.
Can you build a computer from scratch? Can you build a care from scratch? Do you know how build a house from scratch? Specialization is one of the key componants of a modernizing economy. Sure everybody can do their own thing ranchers/farmers and they would have a better chance of surviving some global catosrophe but the country/economy would be drastically different. Urbanization is the result of changing economic factors.
 
Last point first, that's not accurate. Though the Chinese did establish large cities and maintained them for centuries, they also kept a larger rural sector to support those cities.

I didn't address any sort of moral corruption, though, with more time on their hands city dwellers generally fall prey more easily to the idle hands being the devil's workshop thing. But that's just my two cents and not at all meant as authoritative.

And finally, the first point is devastatingly incorrect. Though we have reached a high point in yield per acre, we do so by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The petro-based fertilizers we use leech nitrogen (among other things) into the streams and rivers, then into the ocean. This chokes out the native fish species, and in some cases creates huge dead zones in the ocean. So an important food source is compromised and we NEED to get even more from our farming operations to make up. More fertilizer - more dead zones, less fish - more fertilzer necessary. Rinse, repeat.

Not to mention we've totally forgotten the lessons of the dust bowl and even worse doubled down on the area, population and farming wise. It's about time historically for that drought cycle to hit again like the early 30s.

These are just a couple of the problems, and there are many.



When you lose track of how the things you rely upon to survive on a daily basis are grown and manufactured, you guarantee your own eventual doom as a society. Large rural areas are required for the urban areas to survive. Continuing to have a large rural sector isn't nostalgia but survival.

I'd like to point out....I don't agree with you but it's one of the more interesting conversations I've had on this site in awhile.
 
Since you are ignorant of how Congressional districts are sized, here is a nice chart of all the New York Congressional Districts and their population and variance from the target (717,707).

Center for Urban Research - 2010 Census population for NYS legislative districts and Congress

The 23-NY which I think anyone would consider to be rural has 664,245. The 15-NY which on Manhattan has 639,673.

Pick another state and I'll show you are wrong there too.

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.
 
Last edited:
Look, the Republicans have figured out that they can't win an election for President with the current electoral college setup. They also understand that they can't win an election based on popular votes. So they're cherry picking states that they could change the laws in to win.

Welcome to the zany world of republican political thought.
 
Due to inefficient methods of farming comparative to what we have now. They have had large urban areas for thousands of years. Those urban areas were the center of their civilization just as in the Western world it's Athen, Rome, Paris, London etc that were the center of Western civilization. There's nothing about urbanization that leads to civilization decay. It's the opposite.

Again, those cities prospered because they were supported by a large rural sector. China is still largely rural.

Well I disagree they have more time on their hands....when the majority of individuals were farming in rural areas the majority of individuals in industrial town were pulling 14 hour + shifts.

I would argue farmers did as well and continue to, where the city dwellers, not so much anymore. But hey, that was mostly tongue in cheek. Moral decay happens in all established societies.

Sure...I'll give you that but it's not incorrect. Do you honestly think that people eat more if their grouped together? That food output would have to be less if people lived in rural areas? In fact I'd argue the opposite, people would need more calories to farm their own food.

No, I think people eat more when there's an abundance. If the abundance is artificial, and they're borrowing from the future to have the abundance today, I believe that's a problem. Food out put wouldn't change if more folks lived in rural areas - as long as there were more rural areas.

Sure...and what was the impact on a much more rural nation? It doesn't matter where anybody lives. If the midwest dustbowl situation occures it will have a huge impact.

In a exclusively rural system the food production would be distributed across the population and without the need to over-produce to keep the cities alive and well, farming methods, long known, could be employed to prevent the recurrence of dust bowl conditions.

For instance, contour farming is a good moisture lock, but it yields less in the long run.

Can you build a computer from scratch? Can you build a care from scratch? Do you know how build a house from scratch? Specialization is one of the key componants of a modernizing economy. Sure everybody can do their own thing ranchers/farmers and they would have a better chance of surviving some global catosrophe but the country/economy would be drastically different. Urbanization is the result of changing economic factors.

The answer to your first questions is yes, with the exception of this, "Can you build a care from scratch", not sure what that is. But I don't have to of course, because of specialization. However, if the specialists all die off, I'll still know how to build it myself.

I understand the necessity in human society for the city, the urban environment. It makes folks feel safe all huddled together like that. And makes distribution and trade easier, more profitable. What I'm trying to say is that, in order for that urban environment to continue, a larger rural sector must be maintained to support it. Shrink that rural sector too much and eventually the urban environment will fail. There's a balance that needs to be maintained.
 
Look, the Republicans have figured out that they can't win an election for President with the current electoral college setup. They also understand that they can't win an election based on popular votes. So they're cherry picking states that they could change the laws in to win.

Welcome to the zany world of republican political thought.

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.
 
Look, the Republicans have figured out that they can't win an election for President with the current electoral college setup. They also understand that they can't win an election based on popular votes. So they're cherry picking states that they could change the laws in to win.

Welcome to the zany world of republican political thought.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom