If You Can't Beat 'Em - Cheat

[Minimalist]

In case anyone was wondering that the republicunts would change their message to appeal to a broader spectrum, relax. They have a different scheme in mind.

You can't teach old cunts new tricks.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013011...MF801.html

BOSTON (AP) - After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I thought this thread was about crybaby Armstrong, but it's even more disgusting. What a terrible group of idiots.

[Psykhronic]

Not surprised. The GOP rides the whaaaambulance to work each day.

[Faith No More]

It's funny, because they had no problem with the system when it worked in their favor.

[Angrboda]

I don't consider it cheating, or even unfair. There has long been a popular desire to reform or abolish the electoral college to make its results more consistent with the popular vote. Their timing may be strategic, but it's far from simple dirty politics. One of the most serious challenges to reform the electoral system occurred at the urging of the Democrats when Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey with less than a 1% margin of the popular vote. So for non-Republicans to call it cheating when Republicans push for it, and ignore the long standing support for such measures from both Democrats and Republicans, is hypocritical. There are good arguments for and against retaining the electoral college, and in the past I've supported retention of it, but there is certainly broad based appeal to the idea of moving to a popular vote election; this is simply a step in that direction.

And it's not clear from the article if this is simply a continuation of old trends or a sea change aimed at manipulating the election; I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is an actual intent to 'cheat' the American people. Moreover, it's not clear exactly how the Democrats feel this would be unfair to them, as Obama won the popular vote in both the 2008 and 2012 elections; if anything, the president whose election would most seriously have been effected would have been Bush's win in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote. And it's well known that the results of such reforms are unpredictable, as current elections are geared to exploit the current system, any changes made would change the way campaigns attempt to exploit that new system — the results are unpredictable. One might just as well say that people like Min want to rig the election by hanging on to an unfair system. There's two sides to every coin.

[Ryantology]

I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is an actual intent to 'cheat' the American people.

1. Republican elements want to change the rules so that congressional districts determine a state's electoral college vote allocation.
2. Gerrymandering.

[Angrboda]

I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is an actual intent to 'cheat' the American people.

1. Republican elements want to change the rules so that congressional districts determine a state's electoral college vote allocation.
2. Gerrymandering.

And this is different from politics as usual in what way? "Republican elements" ? Seriously?

While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.

First, it's only been noted in three states; that's hardly "Republicans" as a whole. Nor is it entirely accurate to say that this story indicates they want to allocate on the basis of congressional district. ("...or something similar") I've seen more examples of dishonesty and cheating by non-Republicans in this thread than I see cited in that article.

Min's thread title and OP suggest that the Republicans are doing something unusually dishonest that other parties are not doing. Pointing to gerrymandering and a desire to reform the electoral college won't get you to the men's room. And, as noted, the results of such a change are unpredictable.


Wikipedia:

The United States has a long tradition of gerrymandering that precedes the 1789 election of the First U.S. Congress. In 1788, Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist allies were in control of the Virginia House of Delegates. They drew the boundaries of Virginia's 5th congressional district in an unsuccessful attempt to keep James Madison out of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Historically, each state legislature has used gerrymandering to try to control the political makeup of its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Partisan legislators typically try to maximise the number of congressional delegation seats under the control of the legislature's majority party.

[Ryantology]

And this is different from politics as usual in what way? "Republican elements" ? Seriously?

Min's thread title and OP suggest that the Republicans are doing something unusually dishonest that other parties are not doing. Pointing to gerrymandering and a desire to reform the electoral college won't get you to the men's room. And, as noted, the results of such a change are unpredictable.

Gerrymandering is generally considered dishonest, as it enables parties to win elections they may not otherwise win. However, this is currently restricted to the lower house of Congress. Republicans want to use this tactic to influence presidential elections, in recognition that Republicans have little chance of ever winning national elections in the current system thanks to their having alienated so many groups of people which are quickly forming a majority of voters. I don't know what, about that, sounds honest to you.

Whether it is 'politics as usual' or not is irrelevant. This is not reform. This is a move specifically designed to favor one political party. If their goal was reform, they would have suggested going with the straightforward national vote as the determinant. What we have here is Republicans (after all, how many Democrats want this?) wanting to trade a flawed system for one with even worse flaws.

I would find it objectionable if it was Democrats doing this, for the same reasons. It's slimy. Gerrymandering is bad enough on the level we have it. If parties can use congressional redistricting to subvert the will of the majority of voters, whatever semblance of democracy we have now will vanish.

[Minimalist]

So, the chairman of the NRC saying it is insufficient?

"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

Notice, please, that the fuckhead does not suggest that Texas...where the cities voted for Obama...go to the same system.


Come on, Apo. Get real.

[Angrboda]

Oh yes, the "come on, get real" argument. That's always a knock-out punch in any logical argument. Here we have Ryantology suggesting that we recognize "that Republicans have little chance of ever winning national elections in the current system," despite the fact that over the last half century, Republicans and Democrats have split the national election pretty much down the middle.

Stop drinking the kool-aid, kids. It's bad for you.