Is the republican party trying to rig the presidential election?

[BigRedChief]

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.

[LiveSteam]

Why cant we just sit down at a computer & type in our (lets say SS# or something similar) & place our vote?
The hole EC system sucks. I live in Nebraska. Like my vote or state matters.

I chose Gaz

[listopencil]

I would rather not go with a "winner take all" EC vote anyway.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I would rather not go with a "winner take all" EC vote anyway.

Then just go to a straight popular vote.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Why cant we just sit down at a computer & type in our (lets say SS# or something similar) & place our vote?

I can't think of a single problem with that plan.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Then just go to a straight popular vote.

Sure, sounds good to me. Split the EC votes by popular votes per state.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Sure, sounds good to me. Split the EC votes by popular votes per state.

Huh? Why per state? whats the difference between that and the gerrymandering solution?

Why not the candidate with the most votes win?

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Then just go to a straight popular vote.

Then the only viewpoints that will matter are the urban views because that's where more of the population lives. As imperfect as our solution is, it lessons minority views being overrun by any majority.

People tend to forget, democracy by it's nature is evil. Why? Because the majority is often used to oppress and suppress the minority from ever being able to become the 'majority'. That's why the republic was relative genius. It preserves much of the good of democracy while restricting it's 'evil' nature by trying to protect minority viewpoints.

This is why I cannot understand why the Democrats desire to change the filibuster rules. It is highly short sighted view points that will almost certainly **** them in the ass when they lose control of the senate(which is what will happen if they significantly weaken the fillibuster, and push a further left agenda than most of america wants). They'll go left and get voted out, the Reps will go right and then get voted out and in the end the people that lose are us.

Paraylsis of government is actually a good thing because many of our laws are based in discrimination, forcing compromise even if either side hates it is good. It helps moderate the nature of our extreme politicians.

Frankly the only way our of our current extremism is to limit terms to one. There already is no accountability of our legislators. People aren't going to vote out their parties incumbent that often. Being an incumbent is such a massive advantage to get reelected that a bad incumbent is better than the other party. You have to go way overboard to get voted out.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Huh? Why per state? whats the difference between that and the gerrymandering solution?

Why not the candidate with the most votes win?

Because I doubt that the political will exists to do away with the EC.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Because I doubt that the political will exists to do away with the EC.

Well if its a choice between gerrymandering and doing away with the EC?

FTR, IMHO, gerrymandering knows no party lines. Both sides are guilty of the practice.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Huh? Why per state? whats the difference between that and the gerrymandering solution?

Why not the candidate with the most votes win?

Honestly I agree gerrymandering blows, but I don't know how to fix that problem in the short term. Because if you fix gerrymandering, you'll also stop states from being able to create districts that allow certain minority groups to get a representative

The problem is our leadership on both sides is by nature, evil, power hungry mother****ers. They will do anything that it takes to stay in power. Fair would be great but no one is actually interesting in fair, they want domination.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Huh? Why per state? whats the difference between that and the gerrymandering solution?

Why not the candidate with the most votes win?

Do you understand the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Do you understand the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?

Insert a regulation FU gif here.

[teedubya]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Frankly the only way our of our current extremism is to limit terms to one. There already is no accountability of our legislators. People aren't going to vote out their parties incumbent that often. Being an incumbent is such a massive advantage to get reelected that a bad incumbent is better than the other party. You have to go way overboard to get voted out.

I'm also of the one-term belief. One term in the House. One term in the Senate. One term as President. 3 terms total. No pension.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Well if its a choice between gerrymandering and doing away with the EC?

FTR, IMHO, gerrymandering knows no party lines. Both sides are guilty of the practice.

As I recall the EC exists to help eliminate "regional candidates", to keep the smaller states relevant.