GOP: if we can't win the game, let's change the rules.

[Thumb]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...houghts-changing-the-rules-not-the-party?lite

Republicans still upset Mittens blew it, want things changed so it will always tip the scales more in their favor.

Rather than picking someone, you know, electable.

 

[Michchamp]

I saw this. it's infuriating.

also infuriating how they retained control of the house through the extensive jerrymandering that gives rural conservative bumfucks more representation than city-folk.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Wait a minute, Liberals upset that Repub's want to change the rules to be in their favor? Next a Rebub will come on here because they're upset the Libs are doing something wrong. What world am I living in..

 

[Michchamp]

Wait a minute, Liberals upset that Repub's want to change the rules to be in their favor? Next a Rebub will come on here because they're upset the Libs are doing something wrong. What world am I living in..

well, the issue is really they are trying to change the rules in their favor by changing them in a way that ensures votes of people who don't typically vote their way won't count.

pretty cynical way to "reach out to the blacks and hispanics" if you ask me.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Hey, whatever gets the vote. Politics is all crooked anyway. What's one more scheme.

 

[redandguilty]

well, the issue is really they are trying to change the rules in their favor by changing them in a way that ensures votes of people who don't typically vote their way won't count.

pretty cynical way to "reach out to the blacks and hispanics" if you ask me.

I think he gets the issue. It's nothing new; that's all. Yes it sucks how much effort they put into winning the game rather than doing their job, but that's the system we've got.

 

[Thumb]

Wait a minute, Liberals upset that Repub's want to change the rules to be in their favor? Next a Rebub will come on here because they're upset the Libs are doing something wrong. What world am I living in..

This is not simple bickering back and forth over simple party politics Mitch.

This is people who are so upset they want to change the system used to elect the POTUS, a system that has been in place over 150 years.

Now the "Libs" didn't try to change the electoral system when the GOP won 3 straight terms in the 80's, yet the GOP has assholes like Mitch McConnell, who are less interested in making a working government, than fighting the opposite party.

The current system has worked for a long time, with the party that loses being gracious, and preparing for the next election, well, until a black man was elected.

This is just petty.

 

[redandguilty]

This is not simple bickering back and forth over simple party politics Mitch.

This is people who are so upset they want to change the system used to elect the POTUS, a system that has been in place over 150 years.

Now the "Libs" didn't try to change the electoral system when the GOP won 3 straight terms in the 80's, yet the GOP has assholes like Mitch McConnell, who are less interested in making a working government, than fighting the opposite party.

The current system has worked for a long time, with the party that loses being gracious, and preparing for the next election, well, until a black man was elected.

This is just petty.

They tried to change it after Nixon got elected. And FDR tried to double the size of the Supreme Court so he could load it with his appointments.

 

[Michchamp]

They tried to change it after Nixon got elected. And FDR tried to double the size of the Supreme Court so he could load it with his appointments.

did they try to change it in the same way? FDR's threat to load the Supreme Court was not really anywhere near the same thing. and of course, packing the court like that could backfire as soon as a more conservative president was in the White House. so... it wasn't not really unfair in that regard.

to me, there all attempts to game the systems aren't the same; there are some things that go too far. it's like in sports... maybe there are some dirty tricks you can do to get an advantage, get in the guy's head, mess with him... but it's fair, because he can do them back to you. Here, outright disenfranchising (for all practical purposes) large segments of voters crosses a line in my opinion. it's also arguably unconstitutional.

 

[redandguilty]

did they try to change it in the same way? FDR's threat to load the Supreme Court was not really anywhere near the same thing. and of course, packing the court like that could backfire as soon as a more conservative president was in the White House. so... it wasn't not really unfair in that regard.

to me, there all attempts to game the systems aren't the same; there are some things that go too far. it's like in sports... maybe there are some dirty tricks you can do to get an advantage, get in the guy's head, mess with him... but it's fair, because he can do them back to you. Here, outright disenfranchising (for all practical purposes) large segments of voters crosses a line in my opinion. it's also arguably unconstitutional.

the Nixon thing < this thing < FDR's thing in my opinion.

Fortunately, none of it happened or will happen in the case of this current idea.

The idea of shifting the weighting of the urban/rural electoral college might seem like a big terrible injustice if you're a dem, and it's obvious that there's no high-minded principle behind it on the republican side, but if you were clueless about current politics and only aware of the original intent and how demographics have shifted towards the cities, you might think a little pro-rural shifting of the rules was a pretty good idea.

 

[Michchamp]

the Nixon thing < this thing < FDR's thing in my opinion.

Fortunately, none of it happened or will happen in the case of this current idea.

The idea of shifting the weighting of the urban/rural electoral college might seem like a big terrible injustice if you're a dem, and it's obvious that there's no high-minded principle behind it on the republican side, but if you were clueless about current politics and only aware of the original intent and how demographics have shifted towards the cities, you might think a little pro-rural shifting of the rules was a pretty good idea.

so you're okay with this: "hey, you live in a city/northern state, but we're going to make your vote count 1/2 of what some rural voter's does since that's the only way we can ram our legistlative agenda through congress. be prepared to pay the same taxes, and get fewer services and benefits back, suckers."

you're probably thinking to yourself, "Gee, this is just that elitist MichiganChamp thinking his vote should count equally with those of less intelligent and less well-educated rural voters. That just smacks of the sort of elitism I don't like. Those people got the sort of common sense and understanding of the world that we need more of! They don't have all those corrupted values that people in the cities have. I seen it on TV. I live in North Carolina, and I'm just fine, thank you very much." And that's okay. I don't really care.

But I would be curious to see how you'd react if the same thing were carried on locally, for example, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill were redistricted into one legislative district and its representation limited accordingly, and the collar counties were given more, and started pushing extreme-moral legislation through the state that you didn't like.

No more home brewing... no more contraceptives...

 

[redandguilty]

so you're okay with this: "hey, you live in a city/northern state, but we're going to make your vote count 1/2 of what some rural voter's does since that's the only way we can ram our legistlative agenda through congress. be prepared to pay the same taxes, and get fewer services and benefits back, suckers."

you're probably thinking to yourself, "Gee, this is just that elitist MichiganChamp thinking his vote should count equally with those of less intelligent and less well-educated rural voters. That just smacks of the sort of elitism I don't like. Those people got the sort of common sense and understanding of the world that we need more of! They don't have all those corrupted values that people in the cities have. I seen it on TV. I live in North Carolina, and I'm just fine, thank you very much." And that's okay. I don't really care.

But I would be curious to see how you'd react if the same thing were carried on locally, for example, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill were redistricted into one legislative district and its representation limited accordingly, and the collar counties were given more, and started pushing extreme-moral legislation through the state that you didn't like.

No more home brewing... no more contraceptives...

We actually are having those types of redistricting issues. It happened just before the 2012 elections. It's the American way. Design the system to protect the little guy. I'm still in favor of affirmative action and I'm still in favor of the electoral college.

This maps shows a 40/60 popular split.

 

[redandguilty]

No more home brewing... no more contraceptives...

And yes, even if people were like this (although they aren't, there are only 2 states left that haven't changed their homebrewing laws and at least one of them is working on it), I wouldn't be in favor of straight democracy over an electoral system.

 

[tinselwolverine]

As is the case when either party over-reaches-although the Republicans seem to be doing it more of late-the GOP might be ignoring an important political calculus that could come around to bite them in the ass.

Let's say I'm a moderate, non-partisan "swing" voter in one of these states. Let's say I may have voted for some of these Republicans in the past who are now talking about trying to implement this change.

My first reaction is going to be "this is going to dilute my state's influence in presidential politics."

Anything that dilutes influence is generally not a good thing, regardless of which party's presidential nominee ends up winning the state.

So this could turn me against the GOP local pols who support it.

If I'm advising the Democrats in those states, this goes right to the top of the talking points and political ads and all that in those states-these changes would make the state's influence in presidential elections weakened, regardless of whichever party somebody supports.

 

[Michchamp]

We actually are having those types of redistricting issues. It happened just before the 2012 elections. It's the American way. Design the system to protect the little guy. I'm still in favor of affirmative action and I'm still in favor of the electoral college.

This maps shows a 40/60 popular split.

I think the point is that it's not being designed to protect the little guy. The "little guy" being anyone at risk of being discriminated against by the majority.and having that discrimination institutionalized...

 

[redandguilty]

I think the point is that it's not being designed to protect the little guy. The "little guy" being anyone at risk of being discriminated against by the majority.and having that discrimination institutionalized...

I get that, and that's why I loaded what I said with qualifiers. In a magical world where politics are simple and people vote issue by issue, you'd have to protect rural voters from city voters cramming fracking down their throats and I'd be in favor of weighting things a little more in favor of rural voters, but that's so far from where we are, I'm not really worried about it.

 

[redandguilty]

As is the case when either party over-reaches-although the Republicans seem to be doing it more of late-the GOP might be ignoring an important political calculus that could come around to bite them in the ass.

Let's say I'm a moderate, non-partisan "swing" voter in one of these states. Let's say I may have voted for some of these Republicans in the past who are now talking about trying to implement this change.

My first reaction is going to be "this is going to dilute my state's influence in presidential politics."

Anything that dilutes influence is generally not a good thing, regardless of which party's presidential nominee ends up winning the state.

So this could turn me against the GOP local pols who support it.

If I'm advising the Democrats in those states, this goes right to the top of the talking points and political ads and all that in those states-these changes would make the state's influence in presidential elections weakened, regardless of whichever party somebody supports.

I had a related thought (though less likely). I assume this won't go anywhere nationally, but states are free to do this right now. If the idea were to get popular only in conservative states, they could shoot themselves in the foot in a flurry of misunderstanding. If I were a liberal in a conservative state, I'd be putting together a conservative super pac to get right on it.

 

[byco42]

I saw this. it's infuriating.

also infuriating how they retained control of the house through the extensive jerrymandering that gives rural conservative bumfucks more representation than city-folk.

Gerrymandering, according to some, was helpful, but not conclusive or decisive in this. The vote share and seat share gap still exists under simulated elections with the old lines. Liberals are a concentrated lot, by and large, where votes are wasted on winning candidates.

I remember Hillary championing the elimination of the EC as recently as 2009. Doubt she feels that way today. Obama also wanted to end the EC in 2004. So, the infuriation needs to be spread about to all who seek to change the rules when it's advantageous.

 

[byco42]

This is not simple bickering back and forth over simple party politics Mitch.

This is people who are so upset they want to change the system used to elect the POTUS, a system that has been in place over 150 years.

The current system has worked for a long time, with the party that loses being gracious, and preparing for the next election, well, until a black man was elected.

This is just petty.

Or a white southern-so-called-conservative. Agreed in principle, though: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...eforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

 

[redandguilty]

Or a white southern-so-called-conservative. Agreed in principle, though: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...eforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

According to that link, someone (presumably the dems) did try to change it back in '79. They tried to do away with the EC in presidential elections all together.