In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia, Republican controlled governments are looking into changing the way their electoral votes are apportioned. Essentially these states want to allocate electoral votes based upon who wins each congressional district within these states in the same way that Nebraska and Maine do.

This is totally and completely legal but would have great consequences. In fact, if these states allocated electoral votes this way, Romney would've been elected.

Huffington Post is biased against this calling it "rigging" but they have a good map of what the election results would've been.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.html

Why would it be referred to as "rigging" if it more reflected the view of the voters?

My thoughts are that States should apportion the electoral votes as they see best relfects their desire as a State. If the California people want an all or nothing apportion, great. If Virgina wants to split them to reflect the desire of the voters regionally, then great.

Con_Alma;1374467 wrote:
My thoughts are that States should apportion the electoral votes as they see best relfects their desire as a State.

This. Personally, I'd prefer my state to simply go by percentage of the statewide popular vote, but each state should get to decide for themselves.

Con_Alma;1374467 wrote: My thoughts are that States should apportion the electoral votes as they see best relfects their desire as a State.

Pretty much. It is none of our fucking business how Wisconsin or Michigan cast their state's vote for president.

Con_Alma;1374467 wrote:Why would it be referred to as "rigging" if it more reflected the view of the voters?QUOTE]

I agree, calling it rigging is bad form...but it may not be the case that apportioning by congressional district more properly reflects the popular view of the voters. Obama still would've won the popular vote in these states.

BoatShoes;1374487 wrote:
I agree, calling it rigging is bad form...but it may not be the case that apportioning by congressional district more properly reflects the popular view of the voters. Obama still would've won the popular vote in these states.

Whether it changes the outcome or not shouldn't be the determinant of deciding if it more accurately reflect the view of the voters.

Con_Alma;1374492 wrote:

BoatShoes;1374487 wrote:
Whether it changes the outcome or not shouldn't be the determinant of deciding if it more accurately reflect the view of the voters.

Well...there are valid arguments for having an electoral college but wouldn't you say that the popular vote is what most accurately reflects the view of the voters? Whether that should control is one thing....but it seems clear that the popular vote reflects the popular view of the electorate.

For instance, in 2000, the popular vote accurately reflected the view that more people wanted Al Gore to be president.

BoatShoes;1374497 wrote:
Well...there are valid arguments for having an electoral college but wouldn't you say that the popular vote is what most accurately reflects the view of the voters? Whether that should control is one thing....but it seems clear that the popular vote reflects the popular view of the electorate.

For instance, in 2000, the popular vote accurately reflected the view that more people wanted Al Gore to be president.

If a State want's a particular region or area's input the popular vote most accurately reflects that area's view. If a State wants the entire State's macro view the entire allotment of total votes cast most accurately reflects the entire State's view. It all comes down to how the State want's to present their people's view...which is the point of my initial post in this thread.

Whether the outcome changes or not is not and indication of if the the views are more accurately reflected as the respective State wishes to reflect them.

BoatShoes;1374497 wrote:
Well...there are valid arguments for having an electoral college but wouldn't you say that the popular vote is what most accurately reflects the view of the voters? Whether that should control is one thing....but it seems clear that the popular vote reflects the popular view of the electorate.

For instance, in 2000, the popular vote accurately reflected the view that more people wanted Al Gore to be president.

The purpose of the election is to elect the President of the United STATES of America.

It also presents a number of practical problems. Without some sort of controlling voting results until all polls are closed nationwide, the popular vote could easily change sides.

^^^^

Just to be clear...that's not my quote in your post.

Con_Alma;1374511 wrote:^^^^

Just to be clear...that's not my quote in your post.

There is a random tag in one of the posts above that confused who quoted what. I thought at first that boat shoes was arguing with himself. :huh:

Con_Alma;1374511 wrote:^^^^

Just to be clear...that's not my quote in your post.

Fixed

That was strange.

BoatShoes;1374497 wrote:

Con_Alma;1374492 wrote:
Well...there are valid arguments for having an electoral college but wouldn't you say that the popular vote is what most accurately reflects the view of the voters? Whether that should control is one thing....but it seems clear that the popular vote reflects the popular view of the electorate.

For instance, in 2000, the popular vote accurately reflected the view that more people wanted Al Gore to be president.

How can the popular vote ever be considered accurate when we have dead people voting?

^^^^

Just for clarification that's not my post you quoted.

Con_Alma;1374541 wrote:^^^^

Just for clarification that's not my post you quoted.

i blame tapatalk...

BoatShoes;1374497 wrote:For instance, in 2000, the popular vote accurately reflected the view that more people wanted Al Gore to be president.

Has the popular vote ever inaccurately reflected the view of what more people want? Is that even possible?

I don't like a purely popular vote because it would concentrate POTUS elections with larger cities.

But if you are talking by state, where equivalent adjustments have already been made with electoral votes, it makes more sense. I worry about gerrymandering, though. It's also a little less compelling than electoral votes, as people in Ohio are clearly very different from people in CA, but Columbus vs. Cleveland?

Otherwise I do feel there is something to cultural assimilation, and as such voters in Cleveland shouldn't steamroll the wants and desires of people in Toledo. It's a matter of how to weight population density vs. geography. Should a vote in Cleveland be weighted 2/3 of a vote in Toledo? I don't think it's 1 to 1, but not sure what the ratio should be.

Funny, when Bush won the 2000 election there was talk of doing away with the Electoral College in its present form because Gore won the popular vote. Those who advocated this were called sore losers. Now, with the Republican Party facing an electorate which is no longer being dominated by white men, they suddenly feel that it is OK to change the rules. You can call it what you wish, but to me it smacks of sour grapes and is yet another attempt by the Republicans to disenfranchise voters. They tried it this past year with voter I.D. laws and it didn't work. I believe that people who believe in our democracy will be able to see through this scam as well.

Democrats are just as eager to throw out votes against them. Al Gore in 2000 tried to disenfranchise overseas military residents of FL.

Here's an older, yet interesting article which, to some degree, refutes your argument about Gore and the military vote. According to this, the Bush team aggressively pursued overseas ballots while Gore's people concentrated on manual recounts in the four disputed counties. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-how-bush-took-florida-mining-the-overseas-absentee-vote.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm The last several paragraphs detail Gore's decision to not contest the overseas military ballots. All in all, I found this article to be interesting reading. It goes deep into the background of a fascinating period of our electoral history.

stlouiedipalma;1376199 wrote:Here's an older, yet interesting article which, to some degree, refutes your argument about Gore and the military vote. According to this, the Bush team aggressively pursued overseas ballots while Gore's people concentrated on manual recounts in the four disputed counties. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-how-bush-took-florida-mining-the-overseas-absentee-vote.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm The last several paragraphs detail Gore's decision to not contest the overseas military ballots. All in all, I found this article to be interesting reading. It goes deep into the background of a fascinating period of our electoral history.

NYTimes, I'm sure that's unbiased.

I remember that recount well. It started with Gore trying to cherry-pick districts where he might pick-up the needed votes, and I'm sure he would have tried to reject overseas military ballots (they were late, because of a technicality) if clearer heads didn't prevail (good luck with being POTUS because you threw out military ballots).

The ironic thing about all this is Gore has proven to be one of the most hypocritical frauds and sell-outs we've seen in politics. And THAT'S the guy the majority of Americans wanted to elect.

Regardless, it's completely hypocritical of Dems/liberals to complain about voter fraud and disenfranchisement when they were the architects of the most embarrassing and anti-democracy attempts to steal a presidential election in our recent history.

queencitybuckeye;1374471 wrote:This. Personally, I'd prefer my state to simply go by percentage of the statewide popular vote, but each state should get to decide for themselves.

This. The district by district way rewards gerrymandering by the party in charge in a particular state and should be avoided at all costs

gut;1376237 wrote:NYTimes, I'm sure that's unbiased.

I remember that recount well. It started with Gore trying to cherry-pick districts where he might pick-up the needed votes, and I'm sure he would have tried to reject overseas military ballots (they were late, because of a technicality) if clearer heads didn't prevail (good luck with being POTUS because you threw out military ballots).

The ironic thing about all this is Gore has proven to be one of the most hypocritical frauds and sell-outs we've seen in politics. And THAT'S the guy the majority of Americans wanted to elect.

Regardless, it's completely hypocritical of Dems/liberals to complain about voter fraud and disenfranchisement when they were the architects of the most embarrassing and anti-democracy attempts to steal a presidential election in our recent history.

Thank you for clearing up your earlier claim that Gore definitely tried to disallow the military vote. Your attempt to paint the Democrats as thieves is really laughable, given the R's propensity for voter suppression every four years.

stlouiedipalma;1377278 wrote:Thank you for clearing up your earlier claim that Gore definitely tried to disallow the military vote. Your attempt to paint the Democrats as thieves is really laughable, given the R's propensity for voter suppression every four years.

He did try to keep those military vote from being counted. He backed off after being pressured.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1375024/Gore-campaign-trying-to-block-military-votes.html

The Dems are no different than Repubs - they want every one of THEIR votes to count. Dems are just as guilty of voter suppression but they do it in different ways (i.e. they only focus their get out the vote efforts in strong Dem communities, just a different form of suppression).