The 2012 US Presidential Race Post-Mortem

Discussion in 'Elections' started by American Brummie, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001

    It's vote-stealing because the GOP wouldn't be doing it if they thought they could win otherwise. I mean, if you want to get cute about it and argue semantics, then fine. But the whole purpose of this scheme is to find a way to win presidential elections even though an ever larger majority of the population will want to vote for the other party. If you consider that to be legitimate, then you're the only one. Even the people doing it know they're trying to game the system.
     
    GiuseppeSignori repped this.
  2. Yoshou

    Yoshou Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's not vote stealing, it is vote nullifying.
     
  3. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Again, imagine if this had been in place in 2012. Barack Obama would have lost the Electoral College with a 3.8% margin in the popular vote. President Mitt Romney would arrive in office with zero political capital, a Democratic Senate almost guaranteed to win extra seats from the outrage, and a House GOP that would see Democratic turnout exceed that of 2008 for the upcoming election. New Jersey and Virginia would be swept by the Democrats, who would then put independent commissions in charge of apportioning districts because one of the iron rules of policy seems to be (from my two weeks' worth of knowledge on the subject :thumbsdown: ) that you don't return to a previous status quo on policy. Democratic legislatures across the country would do the same, and rural districts would disappear faster than you could say rural district. Then in January 2015, Democratic majorities in a dozen new statehouses would implement the independent commission and that would be that. Sure, we'd have a wonkier Electoral College system, but the Republicans could never again apportion districts to put 12 Republicans in Ohio in 500,000-person districts and 4 Democrats in 800,000-person districts.

    So if the GOP goes ahead with this for 2016, you can almost certainly bet that the backlash will remove plenty of them from power, and we'll get a fairer system than they intended. If you examine the map put up earlier, Romney would win with the Republican plan, but Obama would get the most votes from Iowa, California, and other places where independent commissions determine EV winners.
     
  4. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's safe to say that Obama's election strategy would have been quite different had different rules been in place.

    And the current system (for 48 states) has no more moral superiority than the proposed system (which now exists in 2 states). Sure, the GOP wants to win. So? You play to win the game. And this is no way skirts any rules.
     
  5. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    The GOP also wants to win by reducing early voting hours and creating massive voting lines in the hope that they'll discourage the other party's voters. They GOP wants to win by requiring photo ID that would disproportionately affect the other party's voters. The GOP is the party of dirty tricks because it can no longer win through fair means. Why you feel the need to defend that is baffling.
     
  6. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not talking about that.

    I'm talking about the ridiculousness of calling this "vote stealing". It isn't, it just isn't, and you calling it that is, well, not telling the truth.

    If you're a Republican in say New Jersey, why is it a good system to know your vote will never go to the winner of your state? At least if it was by congressional district, some of them would have a chance.
     
  7. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001

    It isn't good. But it's much worse to know the Republicans are trying to set this up so that they could win the majority of a state's EVs despite losing its popular vote. And you're defending that for some reason, while hiding behind semantics.
     
  8. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is this worse then gerrymandering congressional districts, which both parties do at virtually every opportunity?
     
  9. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    Yes.
     
    Minnman repped this.
  10. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    Sadly, you're overestimating the memory and intelligence of the American people.
     
  11. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    What you are saying would make sense if the proposal were simply to apportion electors according to the popular vote within the state, rather than the whole state going to the winner. That would be a system many of us have lobbied for for some time-- 1 elector for every million votes in the state or whatever porportional system works.

    But as I understand it, this proposal gives a vote for each district and then a bundle of bonus votes for winning the most districts-- in effect saying the number of votes won does not decide the number of electors, the amount of surface area won does.

    In New Mexico such a system would apportion the electors as one for the north(Blue), one for Albuquerque(Blue), one for Little Texas(Red) and two to Blue for winning two out of three. The Democrats would get a 4-1 lead for a popular majority which isn't even 3-2. (Of course they got 5-0 under the present system, so it would for the moment be fairer here.)

    But in Virginia, where the Democrats won the more populous urban districts and the Republicans the larger and less populous rural districts, red would get the votes of the greater number of districts, and they would get the "bonus" votes for winning the greater number of districts--and they would score not just an electoral win, but an electoral landslide as a party which lost the overall vote statewide.

    You can say you play to win the game, but whoever does the apportionment can pack and crack itself to a two touchdown lead before it ever starts if this is considered fair.
     
  12. Boloni86

    Boloni86 Member+

    Jun 7, 2000
    Baltimore
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Gibraltar
    I just hope we go to 1 person one vote. President wins the national popular vote wins the White House.

    Dividing the electorate by districts or state lines just makes some people's votes count more than others. That's not very American IMO.

    We already have elections that follow state lines. They're called senators and governors. And we already have an election that follows district lines. They're called congressmen. Would it kill us to have one national election that elects the national president?
     
    Minnman and Q*bert Jones III repped this.
  13. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know is not like we are a Federation of states or anything like that.

    BTW I recommend article 2 and the 12th amendment.
     
    fatbastard and MasterShake29 repped this.
  14. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As ceezmad points out, it's extremely American. Direct election of the head of state/government isn't all that common worldwide. Doesn't happen at all in the UK or Canada for example.

    For those who think this is such a terrible plan that the GOP is pushing, maybe you should advocate for more Congressional districts. 435 representatives is a really small number for a country with 300+ million people.
     
  15. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    That's a good point. They froze the number of Representatives mostly because they simply lacked space to put them.
     
  16. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    May 18, 2002
    New Orleans, LA
    The GOP plan is dead in Virginia - a couple of their state senators have come out against it. They did say it was because elections shouldn't be rigged, it was more like they figure they don't think it would always be an advantage for them. Which is true, until 2008, VA was reliably republican in presidential elections, so they might be able to win again, in which case this plan would cost them electoral votes.
     
  17. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think we need to double the size of the House of Representatives.
     
    MasterShake29 repped this.
  18. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And add in Puerto Rico and DC as states.
     
    Boloni86 repped this.
  19. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nah, just give most of DC back to Maryland and make DC only the stuff around the Washington mall.
     
    dapip repped this.
  20. Boloni86

    Boloni86 Member+

    Jun 7, 2000
    Baltimore
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Gibraltar
    No thanks. As a former DC resident my favorite thing about DC is that it's not Maryland
     
  21. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you mistake the reformist in me with the blind partisan in me. I want those three extra votes in Congress.
     
  22. Chesco United

    Chesco United Member+

    Jun 24, 2001
    Chester County, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There was the state of New Columbia proposal (including most of DC). Obviously, supporting that is political suicide for Republicans.
     
  23. Yoshou

    Yoshou Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would think being Republicans is greater political suicide for a Republican than New Columbia. ;)
     
    Boloni86 repped this.
  24. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There needs to be an apportionment amendment. A straight doubling doesn't necessarily eliminate the problem.
     
  25. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Absolutely. I think we need two amendments; the first is that no state can have just one representative. The other, that we should have some sort of cap on the size of a district.
     

Share This Page