Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Pennsylvania Republicans don't like their state's winner-take-all electoral rules, so they're going to change them to favor GOP candidates   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 201
    More: Obvious, Pennsylvania Republicans, GOP, Pennsylvania, United States elections, 2006, electoral vote, electoral colleges, Tom Corbett, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette  
•       •       •

10170 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2011 at 9:10 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-13 05:22:45 PM  
well, if you can't win legitimately, cheat.
 
2011-09-13 05:28:19 PM  
Don't worry, they can't get anything passed till 2013 and they will lose the legislature by then.
 
2011-09-13 05:30:54 PM  

WTF Indeed: Don't worry, they can't get anything passed till 2013 and they will lose the legislature by then.


I hope you're right. This shouldn't even be constitutional while the dreaded Electoral College is in effect.
 
2011-09-13 05:37:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: WTF Indeed: Don't worry, they can't get anything passed till 2013 and they will lose the legislature by then.

I hope you're right. This shouldn't even be constitutional while the dreaded Electoral College is in effect.


I'm torn on this.

I hate the electoral college. BUT I think you're right: While it exists, it should be "winner takes all" for each state.
 
2011-09-13 05:49:40 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: WTF Indeed: Don't worry, they can't get anything passed till 2013 and they will lose the legislature by then.

I hope you're right. This shouldn't even be constitutional while the dreaded Electoral College is in effect.


Maine and Nebraska are not "winner take all states." I think they've had a system that splits them in proportion to the popular vote for a very long time.
 
2011-09-13 06:07:52 PM  
How 'bout we eliminate the entire EC?
 
2011-09-13 06:09:41 PM  

Nabb1: I hope you're right. This shouldn't even be constitutional while the dreaded Electoral College is in effect.

Maine and Nebraska are not "winner take all states." I think they've had a system that splits them in proportion to the popular vote for a very long time.


It is certainly constitutional.

Art II, cl. 2:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

As for Nabb's point, both Maine and Nebraska pick their electors as the Penn GOP propose.
 
2011-09-13 06:23:43 PM  
The only solution is for Democrats to do the same thing in the states they control!

More seriously, it would be kind of interesting to see what would happen if this were implemented nationally. We might actually see Presidential candidates in Southern Oregon once in awhile.

/On second thought, the awful traffic like when Bush Jr. visited is something I can do without.
 
2011-09-13 06:32:30 PM  

Aarontology: How 'bout we eliminate the entire EC?


Get rid of the senate. Problem solved.
 
2011-09-13 06:38:42 PM  

Snarfangel: The only solution is for Democrats to do the same thing in the states they control!

More seriously, it would be kind of interesting to see what would happen if this were implemented nationally. We might actually see Presidential candidates in Southern Oregon once in awhile.

/On second thought, the awful traffic like when Bush Jr. visited is something I can do without.


I've often thought that it should be a lottery to see which states go first in any primary season. It might be nice to see candidates pretending to care about me for a change.
 
2011-09-13 06:45:45 PM  
1) These people are douchebags.
2) This is a step in the right direction. I wish every state did this.
 
2011-09-13 06:49:46 PM  

Aarontology: How 'bout we eliminate the entire EC?


We're working on that indirectly. Something like 100+ EV are set to automatically go to the popular vote winner now.

Link. 132 to be precise, comprising of Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont and California. Currently in committee or introduced in 14 other states.
 
2011-09-13 06:52:31 PM  
I'd be surprised, but hell, this is Pennsylvania we're talking about.
 
2011-09-13 06:53:14 PM  

DamnYankees: 1) These people are douchebags.
2) This is a step in the right direction. I wish every state did this.


The senate is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more distorting than the ec. Get rid of it, and the problem is solved.
 
2011-09-13 06:59:45 PM  

EvilEgg: I've often thought that it should be a lottery to see which states go first in any primary season. It might be nice to see candidates pretending to care about me for a change


They should really just hold a national primary on one election day. There is absolutely no reason to do the bizarre state-by-state approach that we have except to give outsized influence to sparsely populated areas.
 
2011-09-13 07:12:47 PM  

vygramul: Get rid of it, and the problem is solved.


static.tvguide.com

Yes, Caesar.
 
2011-09-13 07:36:18 PM  

GAT_00: Aarontology: How 'bout we eliminate the entire EC?

We're working on that indirectly. Something like 100+ EV are set to automatically go to the popular vote winner now.

Link. 132 to be precise, comprising of Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont and California. Currently in committee or introduced in 14 other states.


they could have gone with a FAIR choice of assigning the percentage of electoral votes based on percentage of overall votes.
LOL. like that would EVER happen. LOLOLOLOLOL

stupid election

I STILL cant believe that illinois fell for this.
must have been because the GOP thought that they had as much to win as lose ...
 
2011-09-13 07:42:00 PM  

Cagey B: EvilEgg: I've often thought that it should be a lottery to see which states go first in any primary season. It might be nice to see candidates pretending to care about me for a change

They should really just hold a national primary on one election day. There is absolutely no reason to do the bizarre state-by-state approach that we have except to give outsized influence to sparsely populated areas.


I would like to see primaries on designated dates over the course of a few months but the order is decided by the voter turnout percentage from the previous general election. Whichever state had the highest percentage is first.
It would motivate people to go out and vote.
 
2011-09-13 07:43:29 PM  

Winning: Cagey B: EvilEgg: I've often thought that it should be a lottery to see which states go first in any primary season. It might be nice to see candidates pretending to care about me for a change

They should really just hold a national primary on one election day. There is absolutely no reason to do the bizarre state-by-state approach that we have except to give outsized influence to sparsely populated areas.

I would like to see primaries on designated dates over the course of a few months but the order is decided by the voter turnout percentage from the previous general election. Whichever state had the highest percentage is first.
It would motivate people to go out and vote.


Florida and Arizona would be hard to beat.
 
2011-09-13 07:58:37 PM  

vygramul:

Get rid of the senate. Problem solved.


i105.photobucket.com

What vygramul might look like.
 
2011-09-13 08:03:46 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: 1) These people are douchebags.
2) This is a step in the right direction. I wish every state did this.

The senate is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more distorting than the ec. Get rid of it, and the problem is solved.


I agree the Senate is a bigger problem, but that doesn't mean the EC shouldn't also be fixed.
 
2011-09-13 08:10:06 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: 1) These people are douchebags.
2) This is a step in the right direction. I wish every state did this.

The senate is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more distorting than the ec. Get rid of it, and the problem is solved.


yeah it's hard to gerrymander the entire state isn't it?
 
2011-09-13 08:31:21 PM  

FlashHarry: well, if you can't win legitimately, cheat.


Hell, there were California Democrats that tried to do this for years, even though doing it to California would be the worst possible thing for their party in the election.

Gotta hand it to them for putting belief in fairness (even if it's their idea of fairness) about the party
 
2011-09-13 08:33:56 PM  
are now setting their sites on a major change

Yes, there sights.
 
2011-09-13 08:37:05 PM  

jaylectricity: are now setting their sites on a major change

Yes, there sights.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2011-09-13 08:38:24 PM  
Pretty simple power grab. Smart though, while they have the power. Though, I bet they would be pretty angry if the Repubs actually won the state, and then they cost themselves 9 or so EC votes. Though PA leans toward the democrats during the presidential elections, we were almost considered a swing state in 2008.

I'd rather see entire electoral college system done away with.
 
2011-09-13 08:50:39 PM  

namatad: GAT_00: Aarontology: How 'bout we eliminate the entire EC?

We're working on that indirectly. Something like 100+ EV are set to automatically go to the popular vote winner now.

Link. 132 to be precise, comprising of Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont and California. Currently in committee or introduced in 14 other states.

they could have gone with a FAIR choice of assigning the percentage of electoral votes based on percentage of overall votes.
LOL. like that would EVER happen. LOLOLOLOLOL

stupid election

I STILL cant believe that illinois fell for this.
must have been because the GOP thought that they had as much to win as lose ...


Uh, that's a good thing. If a few more states join in, no matter what, the popular vote winner wins the election, the way it should be. Hell, at 135, there's probably enough to guarantee the pop vote winner wins the EV no matter what. Though I do suppose there isn't much Republican downside at this point, considering those are all fairly Democratic states.
 
2011-09-13 09:01:43 PM  
Where the hell is Weaver on this?
 
2011-09-13 09:16:09 PM  
and heres the thread where democrats speak out against democracy when it wont favor them, yeah?
 
2011-09-13 09:17:41 PM  

Go ahead and change it, it won't help Palin/Romney/Parry/Gingrich beat Obama anyways.


I read some articles about yesterday's debate and it seems Perry has a lot of baggage from his Texas Governor days. I hope the Tea Party somehow forces their candidate to be nominated, because whoever it will be will be creamed in the General Election.

 
2011-09-13 09:18:01 PM  
I Said: Marcus Aurelius: WTF Indeed: Don't worry, they can't get anything passed till 2013 and they will lose the legislature by then.

I hope you're right. This shouldn't even be constitutional while the dreaded Electoral College is in effect.

I'm torn on this.

I hate the electoral college. BUT I think you're right: While it exists, it should be "winner takes all" for each state.


There shouldn't be some states with winner takes all and other states with winner takes the 2 senators and winner of individual house districts take that district. Either all states should be winner takes all or all states should be individual house districts.
 
2011-09-13 09:19:50 PM  
I can't hate. Democrats have proposed this in red states, and Republicans have proposed this in blue states. It's entirely farking transparent.
 
2011-09-13 09:20:44 PM  
Well good, at least the GOP has confidence in their presidential candidates. I'm sure any one of them would beat Obama handily without this move by Pennsylvania. The GOP is just doing this to play fair, so that when Obama loses, he can't complain that they tried to rig the system against him.
 
2011-09-13 09:20:48 PM  
I don't see why this is a problem? Heck, I wish all States did it.

Then you won't have powerhouses like California, Texas, Florida and New York always tipping the scale one way. And candidates would have to appeal to an even wider range of people.
 
2011-09-13 09:22:17 PM  

DamnYankees: 1) These people are douchebags.
2) This is a step in the right direction. I wish every state did this.


You say you support the proposition while simultaneously calling the people who put it forward douchebags? Who's the partisan hack again? A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction; it doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats who are taking the initiative.
 
2011-09-13 09:22:26 PM  

RminusQ: I can't hate. Democrats have proposed this in red states, and Republicans have proposed this in blue states. It's entirely farking transparent.


Which is why I back the EV to pop winner solution. Though I do have to say no Democrats have the ability to pass this in a state that is so close like Pennsylvania. You wouldn't see Democrats be able to push this through in, say, Texas, Florida, any place like that. Hell, Democrats controlled the state house for years here in TN when the state voted Republican, and they didn't do it.
 
2011-09-13 09:22:28 PM  

RminusQ: I can't hate. Democrats have proposed this in red states


actually, dems(the national party, that is) have actively quashed efforts at this in red states to avoid setting a precedent for California.
 
2011-09-13 09:22:39 PM  
Electoral college is retarded, don't have a problem with this.
 
2011-09-13 09:22:52 PM  

namatad: GAT_00: Aarontology: How 'bout we eliminate the entire EC?

We're working on that indirectly. Something like 100+ EV are set to automatically go to the popular vote winner now.

Link. 132 to be precise, comprising of Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont and California. Currently in committee or introduced in 14 other states.

they could have gone with a FAIR choice of assigning the percentage of electoral votes based on percentage of overall votes.
LOL. like that would EVER happen. LOLOLOLOLOL

stupid election

I STILL cant believe that illinois fell for this.
must have been because the GOP thought that they had as much to win as lose ...


I don't think it should be either winner take all or a proportionate amount of Electors aas to the popular vote.

It should be that you get the electors that you win. Period. If a state has 10 electors and you win 6 and another candidate wins 4. You get the six and the other gets the 4.

As far as the Senate is disproportionate, that has been that way since the 14th (I think) where it now represents the people instead of the states like it was supposed to. Put it back to where it represents the state and leave representing the people to the House where it belongs.
 
2011-09-13 09:25:45 PM  
skinink:
I read some articles about yesterday's debate and it seems Perry has a lot of baggage from his Texas Governor days. I hope the Tea Party somehow forces their candidate to be nominated, because whoever it will be will be creamed in the General Election.

It's true, Americans have never elected a dumb, crooked, mean-spirited asshole to the White House.
 
2011-09-13 09:27:48 PM  
They pull this rhetoric every damn time. California? Split it! Pennsylvania? Split it? ...oh shiat, a Democrat won Omaha! WINNER-TAKE-ALL IN NEBRASKA!
 
2011-09-13 09:29:11 PM  
OK, no fair! New rules! I mean it, new rules! OK, if I get a base hit and it lands between the phone pole and the Peters house, that's an automatic. If our team hits a pop fly, it's a ball, even if you guys catch it. That's not an out anymore! If we get three up and three down, we get a point scored for effort and all runs scored by you guys have to be on at least two at bats. Out of the park home runs don't count except for us. And if any of our moms call us in before the 9th inning, you guys forfeit and we win the game cause it's out of our control. What? We're just trying to level the playing field! Come on!
 
2011-09-13 09:29:17 PM  
C'mon Weaver! We need yer input.
 
2011-09-13 09:31:16 PM  
Winner takes all is inherently unfair to the 49.999999999% of voters that do not vote for the winning party.
Or the 66.6% that lose to the 33.4% winner in a 3 way race.

Is that fair?

While I see no fine details, the problem with this legislation will likely be that it does not allow more than a two way split, leaving alternative parties like the Greens and Libertarians out in the cold.

Any system that freezes minority view points out of seats in the legislature, or denies them a seat at the table, is unfair.

Winner take all is used in only a very few countries, some sort of proportional system is more of a standard, at least in countries we consider free.

I would like to think of this as a start toward a free system, but I don't take hallucinogenic drugs so I am not able to. While the dems and reps will battle each other, they know that more parties is not in their interest, so we will continue with the kleptocratic plutocracy we effectively have now.
 
2011-09-13 09:32:50 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I don't see why this is a problem? Heck, I wish all States did it.

Then you won't have powerhouses like California, Texas, Florida and New York always tipping the scale one way. And candidates would have to appeal to an even wider range of people.


Why not just go whole hog and let popular vote decide state wide and national elections?

An honest assessment of our system would also question the validity of States with 14 cows and 12 citizens having the same amount of Senators as bustling metropolises.

It's insane x 1,000,000 given the filibuster and secret hold rules. A Tom Coburn (for instance) can effectively grind the legislative machinery of 360,000,000 citizens in a democracy to a halt by his lonesome. Such is the power of a Senate seat.
 
2011-09-13 09:33:02 PM  
I think it should be re-done so each individual Congressional district is won or lost. Give the 2 Senate votes to whomever wins the most districts. (Tie? 1 each) It brings the election closer to the people.

(Fire away)
 
2011-09-13 09:33:07 PM  

GAT_00: We're working on that indirectly. Something like 100+ EV are set to automatically go to the popular vote winner now.

Link. 132 to be precise, comprising of Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont and California. Currently in committee or introduced in 14 other states.


The beauty is that it doesn't kick in until states comprising 270 electoral votes have signed the compact.
 
2011-09-13 09:35:20 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Electoral college is retarded, don't have a problem with this.


img199.imageshack.us
 
2011-09-13 09:37:04 PM  

DamnYankees: 1) These people are douchebags.
2) This is a step in the right direction. I wish every state did this.

 
2011-09-13 09:38:24 PM  
If anyone had any doubts that the GOP is the party of fat, whiny, entitled, harrumphing pricks who - when caught bringing nothing to the table but a fork - piss and moan about the food, this should remove the wool from their eyes.
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report