1 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of miserable failure.

2 If Republicans strategerize (yes, I made it up) the process to win, that's unconstitutional. If Democrats do it, we expect it of them, so it's no big deal. "Secretary of States Project" ring a bell? I'm against all Gerrymandering and screwing with electoral vote systems. But I'm more against the fact that only one party ever gets busted for it.

3 1 Couldn't have said it better myself,but I need to repeat it.Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

4 Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now?

5 We will beat them, but we will beat them fairly.

6 "Republican form of government" huh? What's the problem then?

7

I'm in PA (in the Senate, actually) and a lot of rank and file GOPers are nervous about this. I hate it.

We don't need it. I'll win or lose with the current system and the strength, or weakness, of our ideas.

8 In NJ we just re-districted and the Republicans messed up big time. The "independent" tie-breaker for the new district map voted for the Democratic plan. Christie appointed that person..

But look at CA and lots of Northen CA folks don't really get a say with the large South CA blocks.

9 I thought the states get to choose the Electors in whatever manner they see fit? Also, if the winner of the popular vote gets a minority of the Electors, how is that less fair than the winner getting all of the electoral votes?

10 Are districts gerrymandered by population? I'm not too up on this shit.

11 And I admit to the possibility of being totally full of it, but this may contribute to my sense that when the barn starts leaning too far, it may be best to let it go on over instead of trying to prop it up.  Got a while to ponder.

12
I don't like it.

I smell a rat. I think this is somehow an opening for the Democrats to get what they really want: to scrap the E.V. system and use the nationwide popular vote.

13 laws?  Never head of them.......

14 2 If Republicans strategerize (yes, I made it up) the process to win, that's unconstitutional.

If Democrats do it, we expect it of them, so it's no big deal.

"Secretary of States Project" ring a bell?

I'm against all Gerrymandering and screwing with electoral vote systems. But I'm more against the fact that only one party ever gets busted for it.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of The Obvious at October 12, 2011 04:50 PM (bxiXv)

The Secretary of State Project is a FAIL because Soros didn't understand that the redistricting process in most States occurs in the Legislature and not a committee.  

That being said it was Democrats who first pushed this thought.  I was against it then and I'm against it now.

15 The constitution says the states may choose their electors any damn way they choose.  There is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on here except maybe the district boundaries or something.  They don't get to rule on that mechanism.

Also, it would be awfully hard to win the electors but lose the popular vote with this system because the party winning the popular vote already gets two electors right off the bat to represent the two at large Senate seats.

No, this mechanism actually makes the electors more closely match the popular vote.

Because districts are fairly evenly sized in population, you are going to have a lot of districts in the blue areas (how many districts in Philadelphia?  I believe there are several).  This simply prevents the major metros (Madison and Green Bay) from disenfranchising the more rural districts, that's all.

16 I am against it.  Pretty soon we'll end up just scrapping the Electoral college and go with the popular vote, which I'm also against.

17 Duh, meant Milwaukee

18
They're trying to turn our republic into a stinkin democracy.

19
Dudes, the Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

It's real specific about that. The states don't even have to let the rabble vote for electors. They could pick 'em by drawing names from a hat, or by letting potential electors fight it out in the Octagon.

Or by holding a beauty contest. Literally.

May the best hooters win.

20  I smell a rat. I think this is somehow an opening for the Democrats to get what they really want: to scrap the E.V. system and use the nationwide popular vote.

Posted by: Soothsayer at October 12, 2011 04:56 PM (sqkOB)

Yes, it's an opening, but I don't think the Republicans behind the PA plan understand that. Then again, isn't The Fred lobbying for a pop vote? He was in the PA capitol buiding the same day they were holding a hearing on the PA plan.

21 We will beat them, but we will beat them fairly.

Posted by: Joffen at October 12, 2011 04:51 PM (EPcuy)

Second star to the right, straight on til morning.

22 The "independent" tie-breaker for the new district map voted for the Democratic plan. Christie appointed that person.

Mrs. Butterworth (I-NJ).

23 Cool. New hash.

24
Is he?

The GOP is loaded with fools. Popular vote, amnesty, etc.

They don't understand they're helping the Democrats make the GOP go the way of the Dodo bird.

25 Other states already have systems like this in place, so a successful constitutional challenge seems unlikely. The Dems plan to make the EC irrelevant by having states with over half the EC delegates award their delegates based on the popular vote count of the nation is on far weaker ground.

26 If you turn an erection upside down, it's the devil.

27 I love the idea of the Dems never being able to win a presidential election.  Love it. 

And it is true that the States can name their Electors in whatever way they want. 

I still don't like this overall because it does seem like a slippery slope to ending the Electoral College.  That's why I don't support it, but I don't think anyone can stop it except the voters of WI and PA (not through any proper constitutional means anyway). 

28
I remember something about the tyranny of the majority...

29 I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court may say about it.  It's wrong.

30  I vote to hit dat split!  That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

31 We do not need to give Dems any more ammunition to overturn the electoral college.  If they do, and national popular vote determines the Presidency, expect another 10 million "voters" to pop up in Chicago, New York, Philly, etc.  At least now we can localize and contain the cheating.

32
there's a reason for these type of republican mechanisms in place...

33

Typical GOP stupidity.  Go screw with enough crap and end electing SCOAMF to another 4 years.  "Never get in the way when your opponent is trying to shoot himself in the foot"  When will we learn

34 there's a reason for these type of republican mechanisms in place...
Posted by: Soothsayer

Profit.

35 16 I am against it.  Pretty soon we'll end up just scrapping the Electoral college and go with the popular vote, which I'm also against.

Posted by: Osa,a bin Truck Monkey, TEArrorist Son of a Bitch at October 12, 2011 04:58 PM (jucos)

You have no idea how right you are. Uber-RINO John Anderson ran on this as an independent in 1980.  AFter he lost he formed an organization to promote the "Congressional District Method" as a means to transition to direct election by popular vote. It was a faltering affair until the Dubya vs. ClimateFreak election in 2000 the aftermath saw a lot of money pour into their coffers from Democrats. Now it has a warchest and funds those who want the CDM regardless of political party. It will, if successful, destroy the Republic system we have.

36 I remember something about the tyranny of the majority... (I remember something about the tyranny of the majority!)

37
btw, my prediction about Biden being dumped for Petraeus isn't looking so crazy now, is it?

Obama needs to a) dump Biden because he's an anchor, and b) bolster his national security cred.

38 If voting procedures become too stacked against one party, the Supreme Court may nullify them on the theory that the the Constitution, above all else, guarantees a genuine democratic contest, not an engineered, foreordained outcome.

Where have they done that? The only thing I have seen them do is step i to guarantee minorities a seat which is BS but that is that.

39 The SCOTUS had no problem with the majority minority Congressional districts being representative of the electorate, so why would they then have a problem with electoral votes being divided using the same method ?

40

the more we mess with the Constitution, the worse it gets for all of us, some things should just be left alone, but some shouldn't

the SC should step in to end gerrymandering, it is specifically prohibited by the constitution.

41 I dunno, all rules become convoluted to the democrats advantage by the GOP's acquiescence, so I am hesitant to get too clever. I'd rather focus on breaking up California into several smaller states and giving up part of the Southwest to Mexico as a fait accompli and just suture and amputate their gangrene.

42 The Secretary of State Project is a FAIL because Soros didn't understand that the redistricting process in most States occurs in the Legislature and not a committee. Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at October 12, 2011 04:57 PM (MYL+K) It wasn't just about districts, it was about being in charge of padding counting the votes.

43 When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

44 @41 now your talking my language!

45 Pretty soon we'll end up just scrapping the Electoral college and go with the popular vote and you have no idea how fast 30 million Mexicans can be given citizenship. There will be a Democratic primary in LA and Chicago, and then you can call the election.

46 re: Cali...because we're all on the hook for Cali's politically sponsored I-can't-believe-it's-not-bankruptcy in which we're all paying to keep their union goons in six figure pensions. Quid pro quo, you want bailout, you change your wayward ways.

47  

the SC should step in to end gerrymandering, it is specifically prohibited by the constitution.

Posted by: shoey

Wha... ?

48 "That may be the problem. The Supreme Court has stepped in to change voting plans within in the states, relying on the "republican form of government clause." If voting procedures become too stacked against one party, the Supreme Court may nullify them on the theory that the the Constitution, above all else, guarantees a genuine democratic contest, not an engineered, foreordained outcome."

On what legal grounds? The Constitution is famously silent about how states handle their own electoral votes, and allocating them has nothing at all to do with retaining a 'republican form of government' within the state.

And there's nothing foreordained, un-genuinely democratic about it. Voters go out, vote under their state laws, and the results are tallied.

As a matter of fact, there would probably be an Equal Protection problem if they tried to BAR this kind of reallocation, since it's been perfectly legal in other states for a long, long time.

The Constitution does not guarantee a two party political system. This is a seriously half-baked theory.

49 Merovign, more importantly the method for allowing people to vote.  Again, decided by the Legislature.  That's the problem with Soros...he thinks Dictators run things (By Dictator I mean in the Wilsonian sense) and they don't.

50 As for going to partial elector division I could see assigning them based on district instead of winner take all. That would come close to satisfying the Constitution.  However, some of the States have advocated for a winner of the popular vote take all. That is blatantly unconstitutional.

As for me, on the first one I am one the fence and would like to see more analysis. This will help in some States that are traditionally blue, but hurt in other States that are traditionally red. On the second one I am totally against it.

51 Now, maybe this will lead to less murders and rapes. Let's not be hasty.

52 47

the SC should step in to end gerrymandering, it is specifically prohibited by the constitution.

Posted by: shoey

Wha... ?

Posted by: The Constitution at October 12, 2011 05:13 PM (BbX1b)

 

 

pretty sure it's in there... let me check...

53 and giving up part of the Southwest to Mexico as a fait accompli The stuff we've overrun already? Yeah, we're not so interested in having to pay for all that.

54 OT: Check out the list for supplies needed for OccupySanDiego.  Note the medical supplies needed.

http://occupysd.org/

55
but the Constitution is designed not to disenfranchise the small states -- thus the republican mechanisms and systems.

56 For the record, a nation-wide version of this approach would inherently benefit Republicans, given the natural gerrymander of the US (Dems densely packed in cities, Republican majorities elsewhere).  So those complaining that this is an evil Dem plot to destroy the GOP are going a bit too far.  Yes, if it turns into a NPV, then voter fraud and majority tyranny would be a concern.  But all of that is irrelevant in this approach.  Dems can only do massive voter fraud in districts they already win, which wouldn't impact the total EV much.

That said, there are plenty of other results to be against this approach.

57

the SC should step in to end gerrymandering, it is specifically prohibited by the constitution.

Posted by: shoey at October 12, 2011 05:12 PM (jdOk/)

There will be a lot less gerrymandering this time 'round because the dems got their asses kicked in 2010.  I would imagine that the repukes are a lot less likely to come up with the funky districts that we've seen in the past.  That being said, MD has a (d) statehouse and gov and some of the districts I've seen proposed follow some really funky non-sensical boundries.  Almost as if they've gone door to door to ask about voter registration.

58 37
btw, my prediction about Biden being dumped for Petraeus isn't looking so crazy now, is it?

Obama needs to a) dump Biden because he's an anchor, and b) bolster his national security cred.

Posted by: Soothsayer at October 12, 2011 05:10 PM (sqkOB)

Yes it is. I worked for Petraeus (several levels below) and a good friend of mine was his driver in the 82nd. Not. Going. To. Happen.

59 The people.  United.  Will never be.  Divided.

'Member that? 

How 'bout, "I won." 

If Wisconsin is gonna do this, they had better put a fence around Madison.

60
states like Idaho and Alaska will be subject to the whimsy of California and New York every 4 years.

With the E.C. at least they have the chance to influence a national election.

61 BTW, the Constitutions does not prohibit gerrymandering and the SC has long upheld it, even in the early days after it was invented  in MA (imagine that).

62 This is a god-damned Trojan horse. The Democrats are willing to break the system because then they can demand a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. And then the President is chosen by whichever big-city Democrat political machine is most shameless about manufacturing bogus ballots. It will be a government of the people, by the Democrats, for the Democrats.

63
Petraeus is already in the administration and is doing Obama's bidding. He seems to be on board with Obama.

64 I think this is somehow an opening for the Democrats to get what they really want: to scrap the E.V. system and use the nationwide popular vote burn the Reichstag and shoot the Kronstadt sailors.
FIFY

65 ok, i was wrong the Constitution does not specifically prohibit gerrymandering, but it has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC.

66 but it has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC.

No it hasn't. In fact, there have instances where they have actually ordered it.

67 Obama: "Once I declare war on Iran, I will also declare Marshall Law. So, don't worry about elections and stuff"

68

that's not to say that has stopped them from doing it, Andrew Jackson proved that politicians can safely ignore the SC

 

69 Just got back and read this.  This is a states thing.  Says so in the constitution.  The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over this. 

70 This is a bad idea and besides the GOP will fuck it up somehow and make things worse. It's not as if the EC hasn't worked. There are only like 3 elections in which the EC hasn't followed the popular vote...which may or may not be a good thing.

71 Taking a longer term view, if these changes sway the odds too much in one party's favor then the electorate of each state can choose to elect people to change it again.
 
Personally, I think the big cities wind up with too much say in the outcome as it is. Plus, they almost all vote heavily Dem. Plus a whole hell of a lot of the voting hanky-panky occurs in them too.

72 66but it has been ruled unconstitutional by the SC.

No it hasn't. In fact, there have instances where they have actually ordered it.

Posted by: Vic at October 12, 2011 05:23 PM (M9Ie6)

 

son of bitch!

 

you're right,

 

 

it's way worse than i ever thought....

 

73 Out! Out, damned sock!

74 From mpfs' link @54 this item appears on the list

Can tomatoe

Didn't see can opener on the list though.

75 OT I just got off the phone with a call center guy with 3 degrees, including one in engineering. It is bad.

76

that's not to say that has stopped them from doing it, Andrew Jackson proved that politicians can safely ignore the SC

 

Posted by: shoey at October 12, 2011 05:24 PM (jdOk/)

I like to lecture them.  They will listen to me because I am dripping with awesome sauce.

77 The Supreme Court, since Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)[31] and Reynolds v. Sims (1964),[32] has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats according to "one man, one vote".[33] Couldn't it be argued that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by apportioning their electoral votes-are giving more weight to the "one man, one vote" aspect of the Equal Protection Clause?

78 In time for the end of western civilization?

79 74 From mpfs' link @54 this item appears on the list

Can tomatoe

Didn't see can opener on the list though.
Posted by: Retread

How about condoms as medical supplies?  If there is ever a natural disaster never count on theses 99% to help, they are clueless, helpless and hopeless. It's like one giant Tardisil gathering.

80 I'd rather focus on breaking up California into several smaller states and giving up part of the Southwest to Mexico as a fait accompli and just suture and amputate their gangrene.

That's the difference between the country we used to be and one we are now.  In the old days, we would have sent in the cavalry and cleared out those on the land we coveted.  Now, we give up and hope to contain the damage, which of course we never do because giving up only encourages them. 

Only half sarc.

81 popular vote is scary bad.  a slow migration to that system would make the whole of the usa like a washington state (seattle), a pennsylvannia (philladelphia), or minnesota (minneapolis) basically any nationwide election could be gamed by a single city where a party could have the entire election process on opaque lockdown where missing ballots were pulled out of couch cushions the whole night of the election.  that is the shortest path to banana republic.

82 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of miserable failure

83 This whole thread is just an excuse to use the term Kobyahsi Maru.

84 I like to lecture them.  They will listen to me because I am dripping with awesome sauce.

We need to talk.

85 Would the Demonrats screw us outta elections given the chance? Naaaaaaaa...

86 Let me take that back. They mostly for decades refused to hear gerrymander cases. The first case they did review WAS ruled unconstitutional but it was on the grounds of "gerrymandering" it was on the grounds of denying blacks the ability to vote for blacks. IOW they did it on racial grounds. Since then the lower courts have ordered gerrymandering to make minority majority districts. But, now the wheel has turned somewhat and the more recent cases are starting to roll that back,.....some.

Don't expect to see Jim Clyburn get his district whittled down to 49% black anytime soon.

87 *gamed by a single city where a party could have the entire election process on opaque lockdown where missing ballots were pulled out of couch cushions the whole night of the election. * indeed. That is a benefit of EC.

88 How nice for the Tardisil gathering in San Diego.  They will have their food delivered for free!  Of course someone else will have to pay for it.

Donate food orders to Occupy DA & Sweet & Savory Cafe will deliver!

89 How nice for the Tardisil gathering in San Diego.  They will have their food delivered for free!  Of course someone else will have to pay for it.

Donate food orders to Occupy SD and Sweet & Savory Cafe will deliver!

90 OT:  Someone got a bad perm....(I denounce myself...)

At least six reported dead in shooting at Southern California hair salon

91 I see a few paths to cleaning up our current mess

-How do you defeat a monster?  By becoming an even larger / more brutal monster.  (not a good option)

-Good people organize and clean house followed by a moral values and constitutional revival in this country among multiple generations of the youth.  (again could create a future monster)

-Jesus shows up and sorts everyone out.

If anyone knows of another path to getting this country back on track I am open to it.   With the youth having been indoctrinated with lies about our history and Pavlovian style conditioned against our values and the necessity of constitutional government, whatever happens its gonna be ugly.

92 I feel like Ace, dup posting.   _{my bad...hangs head in shame.}

93 arrrgggg:

but it was NOT on the grounds of "gerrymandering"

94 Didn't see can opener on the list though.

Well a good boyscout is never without his trusty pocket knife.

Oh that's right theses aren't boy scouts are they. Their screwed then.

95 My personal favorite path to cleaning up this mess we are in would be a simple flip of the switch.  Stop payroll tax deductions, make people physically hand over their money.  Then end tax credits for those on welfare.  That ought to short-circuit leftist lies and culture overnight.  Set them back a century.

96 I guess I don't have much of a problem with this except for some unintended consequences that I haven't thought of yet, other than "how could OdipO create chaos at the election with it".

97 **That's the difference between the country we used to be and one we are now. In the old days, we would have sent in the cavalry and cleared out those on the land we coveted. Now, we give up and hope to contain the damage, which of course we never do because giving up only encourages them. ** The old republic is dead. There is no confidence in the realm today.

98 91 OT:  Someone got a bad perm....(I denounce myself...)

At least six reported dead in shooting at Southern California hair salon

Posted by: Tami-Cardinals!

Seal Beach hair salon name Meritage, 500 block of PCH.  9 shot, 6 dead.  One man in custody. Someone came in with a bulletproof vest on and starting shooting.  It appears the have disregarded Gov. Brown's new law banning open carry.

99 How about condoms as medical supplies?

Well they did list hand sanitizer, too, so if they don't get donated condoms atleast the hand jobs will be clean.

100 The only reason the Democrats will not win is due to the fact that they are - at the beginning of every day - disloyal to the Constitution. It would work fine for a different party to compete against the Republicans. Democrats - by their own hand - have put the onus on themselves. The reason this affects them is because they have been and are illegitimate and criminal in their acts. Fuck'em. Next question.

101 63
Petraeus is already in the administration and is doing Obama's bidding. He seems to be on board with Obama.
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 12, 2011 05:20 PM (sqkOB)

No sir, it's called duty. That's a Petraeus signature.

Until Obama Directors of the CIA were supposed to be politically exempt. Haitch Bush was not a Ford favorite and was offered the DCI under Carter. Stansfield Turner was clearly non-political. In fact, dating back to the first DCI Hillenkotter, the person holding that position was clearly not a crony of the Administration...because Congress wanted it that way.  They barely approved William Colby, a staunch liberal, as Nixon's DCI, because he was one of the people who promoted "Hearts and Minds" (While it was a Democrat initiative out of LBJ's office it was tagged as Republican).

History, it's a bitch,

102 Dang someone failed to tip the new transgendered colorist again.

103 We're going round in circles. This idea came up months ago, then weeks ago, and then people take a hard look at the "unintended consequences", which are all bad. The fact that it keeps coming up again and again shows that Republicans are saying one thing - We got this! - & mean quite another. Here's something a lot more substantive, significant - & urgent: http://tinyurl.com/3csenw7 Are you ready for some football? December 6 is TWO FREAKIN' WEEKS after Thanksgiving.

104 History, it's a bitch

F*ck you, no more booty calls ass...

105 My personal favorite path to cleaning up this mess we are in would be a simple flip of the switch.  Stop payroll tax deductions, make people physically hand over their money.  Then end tax credits for those on welfare.  That ought to short-circuit leftist lies and culture overnight.  Set them back a century.

Posted by: Shiggz at October 12, 2011 05:34 PM (I9fXA)

 

But then I won't get what I want.  No thanks. 

106 We are so fortunate that the first person this Iranian car salesman/wannabe terrorist "stumbled into" was a Federal Informant! What are the odds?!

107 BTW, speaking of SC, redistricting, gerrymandering, and Jim Clyburn; our 2012 redistricting that will create a new district in SC has been held up in two locations.

1. Enough former Dem legislators crossed over and voted with the Dems to block it. That automatically threw it to the courts because it did not get approved by the due date.

2. It is in the DOJ and our good friend Eric gunrunner Holder.

Don't expect to see a new Republican House member from SC in 2012.

108 False Frog?

109 The 'students' are revolting!

110

Recalling the origins of the Electoral College, I notice that it was designed to give less-populous states a slightly larger say in Presidential elections. I see merit in this. But at the time the Electoral College was being designed, States were very much more important than they are now, and the federal government was extremely weak.

Moving from state to state, prior to 1850, perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime event, is now just a matter of gassing up the car, or buying plane tickets. Additionally, 1865 has come and gone, as has WW2 and many other events that strengthened and greatly enlarged the federal government. Looking at the selection of headlines today, and for the past 30 years, the federal government has a much greater effect on one's life than most state governments. Maybe not day-to-day, but when fed laws are applied, they get applied.

How is the current allocation of a states EVs calculated? Doesn't the candidate who wins the most EV districts get all EVs from the state? So, currently in PA for example, winning 50% of the votes + 1 vote  in 10 EV districts nets 20 EVs, even if the remianing 8 districts delivered only 1% of the votes ... unlikely, but gaming the current system to win 50% of the votes + 1 vote in 50% + 1 EV districts is all that is needed.

Maybe the time has come for partitioning EVs up, by district (effectively, by US Rep. district) instead of state, and retaining the remaining 2 votes (effectively the ones representing each Senatorial district) for the winner for the state popular vote.

111

it's clear that gerrymandering is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, but even very early on it seems the power-mongers have had their way.

dear God we're fucked.

112 103 Dang someone failed to tip the new transgendered colorist again.
Posted by: FlaviusJulius

Seal Beach is a really quiet community.  This stuff doesn't happen there.  The cops found the "suspect" car with multiple weapons inside.  As of now 6 dead, 3 more in critical condition.

113 110 They certainly are.

114  I guess I don't have much of a problem with this except for some unintended consequences that I haven't thought of yet, other than "how could OdipO create chaos at the election with it".

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at October 12, 2011 05:34 PM (qpKJT)

 

Unless the SCOAMF's DoJ can file legal action and start tying it up in the courts.  Then we'd have to call off elections until it's resolved. 

115 110 The 'students' are revolting!

And they smell too...

116 113 That sucks. Glad I am not there.

117 Seal Beach is a really quiet community.  This stuff doesn't happen there.  The cops found the "suspect" car with multiple weapons inside.  As of now 6 dead, 3 more in critical condition.

Posted by: mpfs, TPT at October 12, 2011 05:42 PM (iYbLN)

The shooter related to someone in the salon or haven't they said yet?

118 105 History, it's a bitch

F*ck you, no more booty calls ass...

Posted by: History at October 12, 2011 05:38 PM (84oau)

Thank god, after your calls I keep thinking I'm going home to Jersey to Tag Snookie and instead I get a Paramus TV!

119

 OT I just got off the phone with a call center guy with 3 degrees, including one in engineering. It is bad.

How about this one: a telemarketer who'se a certified Toolmaker, certified Machinist, certified Quality control inspector who worked for a NASA contractor and has made Shuttle flight hardware and has over 30 years experience in manufacturing making just a bit more than minimum wage?

Our stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure of a preznint, along with a certain former female House Speaker and current Senate Majority Leader are directly responsible for the greatest waste of human capital in history. I mentioned that to my boss today when he got on another of his tirades, and it didn't even register with him.

Thank goodness he doesn't vote. He calls himself a centrist, but after listening to him talk for three months about politics, he just doesn't have a clue, and he's older than I am.

120 I don't know if the Supreme Court would permit that situation to stand -- losing the popular vote in a state, and yet coming away with the majority of electoral votes anyway. Hell isn't that what happened to Hillary during the Democratic primary in Texas or Nevada-although it was the primary? How are members of the electoral college bound by the Constitution to vote according to the outcome of the state's popular vote? I think the state can bind them, but not the federal government.

121 Crap I gotta go google all of that electoral college jumbo...

122 The shooter related to someone in the salon or haven't they said yet?

It appears to be the ex-husband of one of the hairdressers at the salon. What a bastard.

123 In the case of Pennsylvania, one analysis I saw noted that with Pennsylvania's very-favorable-to-Republicans gerrymander, a Democratic presidential candidate could win the Pennsylvania vote and yet still receive a minority of its electors. In fact, that's a fairly likely outcome (because Democrats are "over-stacked" in the super-solid-blue districts). I don't know if the Supreme Court would permit that situation to stand -- losing the popular vote in a state, and yet coming away with the majority of electoral votes anyway.

The SCOTUS has ruled gerrymandering itself un-Constitutional (in theory, anyway).  It's hard to see how any redistricting of a state's Congressional districts that itself passes Constitutional muster can be declared un-Constitutional for the purposes of allocating electoral college votes.  If the lines are deemed fair to voters with respect to representation in Congress, they ought not be considered simultaneously unfair with respect to choosing electors that are fundamentally tied to a State's number of representatives in Congress.

124 It appears to be the ex-husband of one of the hairdressers at the salon. What a bastard.

Posted by: mpfs, TPT at October 12, 2011 05:49 PM (iYbLN)

A shame they didn't shoot him.  Good Lord!

125 125 It appears to be the ex-husband of one of the hairdressers at the salon. What a bastard.

Posted by: mpfs, TPT at October 12, 2011 05:49 PM (iYbLN)

A shame they didn't shoot him.  Good Lord!

Posted by: Tami

My thoughts exactly.  If you are miserable shoot yourself don't take innocent people with you. 

126

 If one party can't win in a two-party election, that party should fucking change their platform and run some fucking Americans for those seats.

In my opinion.

127 @102 "Stansfield Turner was clearly non-political."  Except for the fact that he was Carter's USNA classmate.

128

Sitting in the Central Valley of California? I'm all for this...

Now? no Presidential Candidate has to worry about Calif.... its a democrat lock... but this would free up a LOT of individual districts within California... so the Dem would HAVE to address the Central Valley Farmers needs, not just the City folks down south....

Because with the current all or nothing system? NO minority party, in ANY State, has any power....

129 Ace, no offense, but that was the crappiest legal analysis I think I've ever read.

130
This is a good idea folks.


"This bill would change Wisconsin to a state using the Congressional District Method," explains LeMahieu in a letter to colleagues. "Each congressional district would choose their own Electoral College vote based on the popular vote in that congressional district and the 2 at large votes would be decided by the popular vote of the entire state."


Such a move strengthens the Electoral College system it doesn't weaken it. The only drawback I can see from this is that it could possibly move us towards something resembling a parliamentary system.

131 129

Sitting in the Central Valley of California? I'm all for this...

Now? no Presidential Candidate has to worry about Calif.... its a democrat lock... but this would free up a LOT of individual districts within California... so the Dem would HAVE to address the Central Valley Farmers needs, not just the City folks down south....

Because with the current all or nothing system? NO minority party, in ANY State, has any power....

Posted by: Romeo13


Exactly, and the reverse would be true for solid Republican states.

132 Romney will be the shit stain on this black and white election of 2012.

133 Can't we just leave it to the popular vote?

134 If voting procedures become too stacked against one party, the Supreme Court may nullify them on the theory that the the Constitution, above all else, guarantees a genuine democratic contest, not an engineered, foreordained outcome.

That's quite a stretch.  It's not written in the Constitution, or the stars, that we will forever be a two party country.  There maybe more or less. 

Even in a one party state, you still have factions; liberal, conservative, interventionist or laissez faire.  As long as the people get a meaningful choice as to the person to represent them, it's all good.

135 "Couldn't it be argued that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by apportioning their electoral votes-are giving more weight to the "one man, one vote" aspect of the Equal Protection Clause?"

After having lived in Illinois and realizing my vote for President never had any chance of mattering this would be a welcome change.  The only downside is that as Wisconsin is turning more and more Conservative-Libertarian it won't be long before the republican party will get all of the electoral votes.

136

The Supreme Court has stepped in to change voting plans within in the states, relying on the "republican form of government clause."

Under the "Living Document" theory (aka, "the Constitution means whatever I want it to mean"), anything that ends in a GOP-controlled government is acceptable because it is then a "Republican form of government."

That the Founders didn't mean the political party when it specified "republican" is irrelevant... it's what the word means TODAY that matters.

137 fuck the supreme court

138

The proposed bill to go to District Elections of Presidential Electors is 1) illegal; 2) unconstitutional.  The bill is illegal in that it seeks to debase or dilute the votes for the President.  It is unconstitutional in that the Electoral College is unconstitutional and always was unconstitutional as it violates the Declaration of Independence. 

139 Uh... I haven't looked at the cases, but how does a constitutional guarantee that each STATE shall have a republican form of government relate to how those governments specify the appointment of electors for choosing the US president? Until it was amended, the Constitution provided that state legislatures appointd US senators. A system that tolerates that doesn't seem inconsistent with what's being proposed. Remember, the "right to vote" is not a constitutional right.

140

The Civil War conformed the Slaveholder's Constitution of 1787 to the Declaration of 1776.   The Electoral College came in with slavery (to create votes for slaves that couldn't legally vote); the Electoral College went out with slavery.

 

141 This info is a terrific read. Thanks for the info.I am looking forward for more updates.

142 How is this worse than the national popular vote thingy? In fact, doesn't it kind of short circuit that endeavor? Isn't that a "good thing"?

143

The law of the Electoral College violates the Constitution itself. For if the majority of the people, could by mutual agreement enter into a binding social compact, then certainly a majority of the country could by direct and popular vote choose the leader of the executive branch of government established under that Constitution.  Lucius Wilmerding in The Electoral College (195 .

144 Gary, what is the point if your post? Do you agree with the analysis, or are you posting it as an example of microncephaly?

145 The reality is that God-fearing, Constitution-loving Americans are the majority. Despite an over-massed skew to the left in the NNM (National Noise Machine), this is still the case. Try to be a Darwinian with a welfare check. I'm just sayin'. Reality bites. You get shot by a punk, bitch. For God's sake, literally, let the Blue Cities die. Painfully.

146 I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thanks , I will try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?

147 It is unconstitutional in that the Electoral College is unconstitutional and always was unconstitutional as it violates the Declaration of Independence. 

Posted by: Gary Michael Coutin

That word you keep using: unconstitutional.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

148 Heh.  The guy is serious, and a loon.

149 I donÂ’t usually add my comments, but I will in this case. Nice work. I look forward to reading more.

150 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

151 Republican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits and fairness of the congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. While in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, some Republican legislators insist the states must change from the winner-take-all method to the district method. And up in Maine, the only other state beside Nebraska to use the district method, earlier this year, Republican leaders proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, will require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier. Obvious partisan machinations like these should add support for the National Popular Vote movement.

152 1) The Constitution explicitly declares that each state shall choose electors as its legislature sees fit.

Popular voting for electors was largely unknown until the 1820s; South Carolina didn't have it till after the Civil War. New Jersey's electors were chosen individually by the voters, who split the electoral votes 4-3 between Lincoln and Douglas. As late as 1960, Alabama voters explicitly chose between slates of electors rather than candidates - the "Democrat" slate that year was a fusion ticket of five Kennedy electors and six "unpledged" Dixiecrat electors who voted for Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia. (If one pro-rated Kennedy's share of the 1960 "Democrat" vote in Alabama by his share of the electors, it would actually put him behind Nixon in popular votes, without even considering vote fraud in Illinois and Texas.)

2) The district allocation system has been used for many years in Nebraska and Maine. It would be absurd for the Supreme Court to rule it Constitutional there but un-Constitutional elsewhere, on the basis of expected outcomes.

153 If it helps the Donks it's just fine and dandy with the courts, if it helps the Repubs it's fucking unconstitutional and a sin against mankind and the heavens above.  In other words, same old shit from the powers that be.  Fuck 'em.  Fuck this system of one party rule.

154

I've lived in PA for all of my voting life, and I have always voted for Republican (presidents) and basically lost my vote nearly every time.

I don't pretend to know the long term effects that his change might have, but I do think that when almost 75% of the state is red, and clearly the two major cities are blue, how is it that we almost always end up giving all of our electoral votes to the Democrat? I want a say in every election, and it seemed at least at the outset, as this would be a way for me/conservatives to have an impact.

If someone can please give me an "electoral vote how to for dummies" on the reason not to like the proposal, I am all ears. I sure don't want to give the advantage back to the Democrats in any way! Nor do I want the state to have no impact at all.

155 Dividing a state's electoral votes by district would magnify the worst features of the system and not reflect the diversity of the state. The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all of a state's districts and would not focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the whole state. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania districts were competitive. In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored) In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. When and where votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When and where votes don't matter, they ignore those areas.

156

#157 - I'm with you!

Color me stupid, but I thought the idea was for the majority to elect the president.  I'm not totally sold on the new plan (I AM a long-time resident of PA), but I'm tired of most of the state voting one wasy, but lose out to Philly and Pitt!  That's fair???