What if they had an election. And you votes didn't count?

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

Jan 19, 2013 @ 18:31:18

Latest Republican attempt to rig the presidential election.
"Imagine that when President Obama won Ohio in 2012, instead of getting all the state’s electoral votes, he only got six of them, while Mitt Romney, who lost, got 12 … that each candidate was awarded electoral votes based on how many congressional districts they won in the state. Now, imagine this didn’t happen just in Ohio, but also in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and other “blue states” that right now happen to have state governments completely controlled by Republicans.

This isn’t just some thought experiment. It’s the latest Republican scheme to rig America’s elections in their favor, and it could work."
People For the American Way email

So what are we to do? Have the "red states" that are completely controlled by democrats propose to do the same thing?

0

Edited: January 19, 2013 @ 18:31

Leon

San Diego, California

#2

Jan 19, 2013 @ 19:15:12

That would require a change in the Constitution then.

0

boxer

Deleted
Banned

, Zimbabwe

#3

Jan 19, 2013 @ 19:43:21

I really am beginning to like the thought of elections being decided by the popular vote. It would certainly increase voter turnout, and make everyone feel that their vote counts. Right now, a vote in Wyoming or Vermont counts about the same as three in California or Florida.

1

Willi

northinmind,

#4

Jan 20, 2013 @ 03:14:33

all states the same is best.

0

FinchMeister

R8UpLittleTramps@ss

ReganNormanMinionluv,

#5

Jan 20, 2013 @ 08:51:11

I always wondered. Do our votes even count?

0

Spinkiegirl

Chicago, Illinois

#6

Jan 20, 2013 @ 09:35:54

@shinobinoz Said

Latest Republican attempt to rig the presidential election.
"Imagine that when President Obama won Ohio in 2012, instead of getting all the state’s electoral votes, he only got six of them, while Mitt Romney, who lost, got 12 … that each candidate was awarded electoral votes based on how many congressional districts they won in the state. Now, imagine this didn’t happen just in Ohio, but also in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and other “blue states” that right now happen to have state governments completely controlled by Republicans.

This isn’t just some thought experiment. It’s the latest Republican scheme to rig America’s elections in their favor, and it could work."
People For the American Way email

So what are we to do? Have the "red states" that are completely controlled by democrats propose to do the same thing?

https://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-election-laws-091622720--election.html Once again Bro.....you have beaten me to the punch!

I would really like to know how you get in my head?

But back on topic.......when I was sent this article, I didn't think much about it. That is, until a close friend of mine who just happens to be a somewhat moderate republican....told me that he was disgusted by the way it seems his party has sunk to new lows! I couldn't agree more. He has voted for Obama in the last two elections, and tells me....if the conservative republicans don't get their act and their priorities back to where they belong, which is with the American people, he won't be supporting or voting for them anymore!

1

Spinkiegirl

Chicago, Illinois

#7

Jan 20, 2013 @ 09:37:15

@Leon Said

That would require a change in the Constitution then.

Really? Is that even a possibility? And if so......how & why?

0

boxer

Deleted
Banned

, Zimbabwe

#8

Jan 20, 2013 @ 12:10:00

@Spinkiegirl Said

Really? Is that even a possibility? And if so......how & why?

The electoral college is an attempt to give smaller states more say in government, so they are not drowned out by the will of the larger states. And it works.. And it's helpful because our laws are not based on a democracy but rather a constitutional republic.

But in a general election, each vote counts as one vote... Except for the President. So everyone else is democratically elected but him.

That's where the problem is in my opinion.

1

Leon

San Diego, California

#9

Jan 20, 2013 @ 14:31:02

@Spinkiegirl Said

Really? Is that even a possibility? And if so......how & why?

Yes, via an amandment, which requires approval by 2/3rds of all states.

0

shinobinoz

Stnd w Standing Rock

Wichita, Kansas

#10

Jan 20, 2013 @ 15:11:43

@Leon Said

Yes, via an amandment, which requires approval by 2/3rds of all states.

This is state changes which adversely affect the presidential election. No constitutional change needed.

0

Leon

San Diego, California

#11

Jan 20, 2013 @ 15:52:17

@shinobinoz Said

This is state changes which adversely affect the presidential election. No constitutional change needed.

Oh okay, well Maine and Nebraska already do it by district rather than employ a winner take all method. I wouldn't mind if all the states did it that way. It probably would be fairer, and closer to how the popular vote is.

0

Leon

San Diego, California

#12

Jan 20, 2013 @ 15:56:41

@boxer Said

The electoral college is an attempt to give smaller states more say in government, so they are not drowned out by the will of the larger states. And it works.. And it's helpful because our laws are not based on a democracy but rather a constitutional republic.

But in a general election, each vote counts as one vote... Except for the President. So everyone else is democratically elected but him.

That's where the problem is in my opinion.

That would be true if the number of electors from each state were not proportioned according to the number of House members, as it is now, but according to the number of Senate members instead. Now, smaller states have smaller number of electors. Big states like California have huge numbers.

0

Edited: January 20, 2013 @ 15:58

boxer

Deleted
Banned

, Zimbabwe

#13

Jan 20, 2013 @ 16:11:29

@Leon Said

That would be true if the number of electors from each state were not proportioned according to the number of House members, as it is now, but according to the number of Senate members instead. Now, smaller states have smaller number of electors. Big states like California have huge numbers.

Its proportioned by the number of house members AND senators.. So Vermont and Wyoming have three even though they only have one representative. This means that a vote there counts more than a vote in California.

Think about it.. 680,000 people get three votes and 6,800,000 people get eleven.. Smaller states votes count more.

0

Leon

San Diego, California

#14

Jan 20, 2013 @ 16:20:51

@boxer Said

Its proportioned by the number of house members AND senators.. So Vermont and Wyoming have three even though they only have one representative. This means that a vote there counts more than a vote in California.

Think about it.. 680,000 people get three votes and 6,800,000 people get eleven.. Smaller states votes count more.

Oh okay, I didn't realize it was by senate too, so that helps a little. But the bigger states still have a LOT more say than smaller states.

0

boxer

Deleted
Banned

, Zimbabwe

#15

Jan 20, 2013 @ 16:32:08

@Leon Said

Oh okay, I didn't realize it was by senate too, so that helps a little. But the bigger states still have a LOT more say than smaller states.

Bigger states have more say, but individual votes in smaller states count more.

Doesn't it bother you that my nephew, who lives in Vermont has a vote that influences nearly three times as many electoral votes as yours?

0

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	US Election 2012	What President Obama said regarding "you didn't build that"	Wed Aug 08, 2012 @ 16:49	50	5833
	Politics	"Obama of Alabama" turns Republican	Fri Jun 01, 2012 @ 19:02	3	988
	Politics	2012 election a "choice" election	Tue Jan 24, 2012 @ 23:59	3	955
	US Elections	Starbucks accused of "buying votes"	Tue Nov 04, 2008 @ 22:02	55	3023
	US Elections	What Will Happen To "Election 2008"	Thu Oct 30, 2008 @ 18:42	6	1036

Politics