• 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 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.

Why not national popular vote? True Democracy?
 
Maybe
I , for one or many, do NOT trust the Republicans.
They must clean their house, grow with the times, do things for the good of their nation, but NOT necessarily for their party.
 
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.

Both of the major parties are guilty of trying to rig elections in their favor. They enact laws to weasel out 3rd parties on state ballots,they deliberately exclude 3rd parties from debates, and they rig districts to be in their favor.And the media aids in this vote rigging by ignoring 3rd parties and only props up candidates they want from each of the major parties to win.
 
Why not national popular vote? True Democracy?

Because the states have no power to create a national vote. It is up to the states, not the feds, to determine how they do it. Pesty old Constitution strikes again.
 
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.

True. However you CAN (and the Democrats have made a living over the last 40 years) by appealing to the interests of the LARGE URBAN AREA Voters over those of the rest of the country. We are no longer a Government of the citizenry. We are a Government of the Large Cities. New York, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, etc.... have more power than the rest of the country combined simply due to the population density they have.
 
Personally, putting the gerrymandering (which both parties do) aside, I think this is an excellent idea. There have been at least two states (Maine being one of them) that do something like this already. Honestly, I think this puts the power much more back in the hands of The People while maintaing the Constitutionally prescribed system. Give the two "Congressional" electoral votes to the overall winner in the state and then base the "Representative" electoral votes on how that individual district voted. In doing so, you reduce the power of the Urban centers to overwhelm the Rural areas simply due to population density.

BTW, under the US Constitution's Electoral College system the people have no federally recognized role in electing the President. If they wanted to, each state could scrap voting for President and allow their state's Electoral College delegates to be chosen by the state's legislature or hand-picked by their Governor. In fact if I understand the history corrected, initially it was state legislatures that voted for President and not the people. It was only later that all the states decided to hold Presidential elections and since it was a state level change, no modification to the US Constitution was needed.

That said, people today want the right to vote for President and if GOP controlled states make changes that are seen as undermining their will, I'd be willing to bet they won't be GOP controlled states for long, state constitutional amendments opposing any future stacking of the deck and a possible elimination of the Elector College.
 
True. However you CAN (and the Democrats have made a living over the last 40 years) by appealing to the interests of the LARGE URBAN AREA Voters over those of the rest of the country. We are no longer a Government of the citizenry. We are a Government of the Large Cities. New York, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, etc.... have more power than the rest of the country combined simply due to the population density they have.

Which would only work if there were more urban voters than rural ones. Oh wait, there are. Around 60% of the people in this country live in cities. I already showed that New York was more urban than rural. Let's look at Missouri. 70% of Missouri lives in urban areas. Nearly half of the state lives in the greater St. Louis area. There are more urban Americans than rural ones, and the gap is widening. So appealing to the majority of Americans is somehow a dirty tactic now, is it?
 
Personally, putting the gerrymandering (which both parties do) aside, I think this is an excellent idea. There have been at least two states (Maine being one of them) that do something like this already. Honestly, I think this puts the power much more back in the hands of The People while maintaing the Constitutionally prescribed system. Give the two "Congressional" electoral votes to the overall winner in the state and then base the "Representative" electoral votes on how that individual district voted. In doing so, you reduce the power of the Urban centers to overwhelm the Rural areas simply due to population density.

Contradictory !
Or "The People" is to mean the property owners ??
And, if the "Urban Centers" have more people, should they not as well have more votes ?
If the people are to have the power, they must have the votes - and this is best done via a direct vote and NOTHING more....No more colleges, no more gerrymandering, and no more un-necessary complications.
 
Which would only work if there were more urban voters than rural ones. Oh wait, there are. Around 60% of the people in this country live in cities. I already showed that New York was more urban than rural. Let's look at Missouri. 70% of Missouri lives in urban areas. Nearly half of the state lives in the greater St. Louis area. There are more urban Americans than rural ones, and the gap is widening. So appealing to the majority of Americans is somehow a dirty tactic now, is it?

And thus you have the problem, it's only going to get worse from here. Used to be we could ignore the festering crapholes and be glad those who wanted to live like that were all concentrated in one place out of sight. Now they've crept out and swallowed everything. The urbanization of this country will be the death of this country.
 
Because the states have no power to create a national vote. It is up to the states, not the feds, to determine how they do it. Pesty old Constitution strikes again.

Republican controlled states can create a clause electorial votes are proportioned based on popular votes if X amount of states adhere to the view. It's something that has been discussed for awhile. Of course...go figure Republicans are only concerned with proportioning electorial votes in states that are purple or vote primarily Democrat. Surely no ulterior motives there!
 
And thus you have the problem, it's only going to get worse from here. Used to be we could ignore the festering crapholes and be glad those who wanted to live like that were all concentrated in one place out of sight. Now they've crept out and swallowed everything. The urbanization of this country will be the death of this country.

Yes...those festering crapholes that consist of the majority of wealth created in this country. If only this country still consisted of yeoman farmers and small towns.
 
Republican controlled states can create a clause electorial votes are proportioned based on popular votes if X amount of states adhere to the view. It's something that has been discussed for awhile. Of course...go figure Republicans are only concerned with proportioning electorial votes in states that are purple or vote primarily Democrat. Surely no ulterior motives there!

So nobody knows how their votes will be allocated until they know how everybody else's votes will be allocated. Sounds like an endless loop to me. Bet the leftist wish they had been okay with people having ID's now.....
 
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.

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.
 
Contradictory! Or "The People" is to mean the property owners??

That would work for me, even though it would disqualify me as a voter. Personally, I do believe that we need to get away from this idea that everyone should be allowed to vote. Allowing the Masses to vote is among the things that has been destoying this country for decades.

And, if the "Urban Centers" have more people, should they not as well have more votes ?

Largely because the Urban Centers tend to have a higher population of people who are TAKERS than the rest of the country. If you don't believe me, then why is it that I see plenty of panhandlers and bums in Worcester, Boston, and Springfield, MA but almost none in the rural areas of the state? We need to get these TAKERS off the voting rolls (and citizenship rolls) so far as I'm concerned.

If the people are to have the power, they must have the votes - and this is best done via a direct vote and NOTHING more....No more colleges, no more gerrymandering, and no more un-necessary complications.

That all depends on how you define "The People". In my mind The People are the Providers, not the Takers. Always have been and always will be.
 
Which would only work if there were more urban voters than rural ones. Oh wait, there are. Around 60% of the people in this country live in cities. I already showed that New York was more urban than rural. Let's look at Missouri. 70% of Missouri lives in urban areas. Nearly half of the state lives in the greater St. Louis area. There are more urban Americans than rural ones, and the gap is widening. So appealing to the majority of Americans is somehow a dirty tactic now, is it?

The problem with the straight numbers is that a fair percentage of those residents in the Urban areas are Takers rather than Providers, Paschendale. You know, the people I don't believe should be given Citizenship, nevermind the Right to Vote.
 
So nobody knows how their votes will be allocated until they know how everybody else's votes will be allocated. Sounds like an endless loop to me. Bet the leftist wish they had been okay with people having ID's now.....

It's not really much of a mystery if x number of states pass laws that allow for proportional voting in their state. It would be business as usual until all states agree to the method.

I have no idea what ID's have to do with anything. You're not fooling anyone and neither is the Republican party. You want to ensure you have a place in future elections and it's become apparent that those voting Republican are becoming a minorty for the foreseeable future. Wrap your selves in the guise of liberty but use any method possible to win.
 
The problem with the straight numbers is that a fair percentage of those residents in the Urban areas are Takers rather than Providers, Paschendale. You know, the people I don't believe should be given Citizenship, nevermind the Right to Vote.

That's bull**** dude. The majority of wealth in the US is centered around urban areas. Go figure...the majority of states with large urban areas are net givers in federal funding and more rural states (barring those with lots of mineral wealth) are net federal takers.
 
BTW, under the US Constitution's Electoral College system the people have no federally recognized role in electing the President. If they wanted to, each state could scrap voting for President and allow their state's Electoral College delegates to be chosen by the state's legislature or hand-picked by their Governor. In fact if I understand the history corrected, initially it was state legislatures that voted for President and not the people. It was only later that all the states decided to hold Presidential elections and since it was a state level change, no modification to the US Constitution was needed.

Personally, I would probably prefer to see the State Legislatures and/or Governors chose the Electors from that state.

That said, people today want the right to vote for President and if GOP controlled states make changes that are seen as undermining their will, I'd be willing to bet they won't be GOP controlled states for long, state constitutional amendments opposing any future stacking of the deck and a possible elimination of the Elector College.

A very large percentage of US Citizens don't even deserve to BE US Citizens at this point in history; so what they want is really immaterial to me.
 
That's bull**** dude. The majority of wealth in the US is centered around urban areas. Go figure...the majority of states with large urban areas are net givers in federal funding and more rural states (barring those with lots of mineral wealth) are net federal takers.

Not so fast there. Any truth to your statement is solely because urban areas are the collection and distribution points for what is produced in rural areas. They are the financial centers. But without the production and resources of the rural folks, the urban dries up and becomes a creature of permanent credit. Oh wait...
 
That's bull**** dude. The majority of wealth in the US is centered around urban areas. Go figure...the majority of states with large urban areas are net givers in federal funding and more rural states (barring those with lots of mineral wealth) are net federal takers.

The financial wealth of the nation may be in the Urban Centers but from what I've seen of the major cities I've been in you couldn't pay me enough money to live in any of them. Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Minneapolis, etc.... There isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in those sh*t-holes full of worthless scum. There is also significant POVERTY in every major American city.

As for the rural states being takers..... I agree that shouldn't be so; because the Government shouldn't be giving money to people or businesses. A lot of that problem has come from people assuming they need or should have a higher lifestyle than is really necessary.
 
It's not really much of a mystery if x number of states pass laws that allow for proportional voting in their state. It would be business as usual until all states agree to the method.

I have no idea what ID's have to do with anything. You're not fooling anyone and neither is the Republican party. You want to ensure you have a place in future elections and it's become apparent that those voting Republican are becoming a minorty for the foreseeable future. Wrap your selves in the guise of liberty but use any method possible to win.

You are not fooling anybody either. You are just mad the leftist's manipulation of the system is being countered by GOP manipulation. If you took the time to remove your partisan blinders, you would see that the allocation by CD discourages safe-seat gerrymandering over time because both sides would want all CD's to be in play.
 
Last edited:
You are not fooling anybody either. You are just mad the leftist's manipulation of the system is being countered by GOP manipulation. If you took the time to remove your partisan blinders, you would see that the allocation by CD discourages safe-seat gerrymandering over time because both sides would want all CD's to be in play.

No it doesn't. It's a horrible idea. It makes CD's the end all be all of all elections. It makes the election every 10 years the most important election in a decade since that's when the census is taken and districts are redrawn. The person with the most CD's draws the CD's. There's absolutely no discouragement of drawing non-safe districts...what you're stating is just not true. You would want to create as many safe districts a possible so that you are the one redrawing districts.

Lines on a map trump everything. People are alread iffy about the electorial college vs popular vote but if CD's elected the President, Obama would of had over 5 million more votes than Romney and lost the election in a landslide!
 
The financial wealth of the nation may be in the Urban Centers but from what I've seen of the major cities I've been in you couldn't pay me enough money to live in any of them. Boston, NYC, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Minneapolis, etc.... There isn't enough money in the world to get me to live in those sh*t-holes full of worthless scum. There is also significant POVERTY in every major American city.

As for the rural states being takers..... I agree that shouldn't be so; because the Government shouldn't be giving money to people or businesses. A lot of that problem has come from people assuming they need or should have a higher lifestyle than is really necessary.

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.
 
No it doesn't. It's a horrible idea. It makes CD's the end all be all of all elections. It makes the election every 10 years the most important election in a decade since that's when the census is taken and districts are redrawn. The person with the most CD's draws the CD's. There's absolutely no discouragement of drawing non-safe districts...what you're stating is just not true. You would want to create as many safe districts a possible so that you are the one redrawing districts.

Lines on a map trump everything. People are alread iffy about the electorial college vs popular vote but if CD's elected the President, Obama would of had over 5 million more votes than Romney and lost the election in a landslide!

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.
 
Not so fast there. Any truth to your statement is solely because urban areas are the collection and distribution points for what is produced in rural areas. They are the financial centers. But without the production and resources of the rural folks, the urban dries up and becomes a creature of permanent credit. Oh wait...

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom