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.

(Balloon Juice)   After losing the election, the OH Sec. of State (R) has a new idea; Ohio should split its EVs by congressional district. If that had occurred this year, Obama would have won the most votes, but Romney would have won 12 of the 18 EVs   (balloon-juice.com) divider line 163
    More: Fail, Jon Husted, President Obama, urban district, Chris Cillizza, swing states, secretary of states, disfranchisements, electoral vote  
•       •       •

2463 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 2:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 11:01:16 AM  
If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.
 
2012-11-09 11:07:22 AM  

DamnYankees: If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.


It would certainly bring the problem of gerrymandering to the forefront. But probably not in a way that anything could be done about it.

I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly. The party in power draws the district lines based on the census. Then we elect representatives based on the district lines, who then draw the district lines again. And the party who drew the district lines, and is usually in power, is rarely if ever going to sign off on district normalization, which means gerrymandering is either here to stay or the voting populace has to essentially throw a huge enough fit to demand change.
 
2012-11-09 11:09:02 AM  

Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly. The party in power draws the district lines based on the census.


Multi-representative districts.
 
2012-11-09 11:17:15 AM  
By Grabthar's Hammer that guy never gives up, never surrenders.
 
2012-11-09 11:22:48 AM  
When Democrats lose: How can we do better next time.
When Republicans lose: How do we change the rules so we can do the same thing and win.
 
2012-11-09 11:42:42 AM  

ManateeGag: When Democrats lose: How can we do better next time.
When Republicans lose: How do we change the rules so we can do the same thing and win.


This. Wish I could "smart" you twice.
 
2012-11-09 11:43:04 AM  
Just the way Republicans prefer their governments: with less Democracy.
 
2012-11-09 12:00:54 PM  
They tried this in PA last year, but it died in the State Senate when one of the big cheeses from the Philly suburbs was basically told "Go for it, but you may as well file your retirement papers while you do" by his constituents. The GOP may be Party before Country, but these guys are Nice Salary/Pension/Perks before Party.
 
2012-11-09 12:02:43 PM  
Those guys. They never stop thinking of ways to cheat their way into power.
 
2012-11-09 12:02:53 PM  
This guy only exists to make the CO Sec. of State look honest.
 
2012-11-09 12:12:40 PM  

Bontesla: Just the way Republicans prefer their governments: with less Democracy.


It's for the best. The Homogay LIEbrul Atheists need to be forced into following God's will.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-09 12:17:23 PM  
How about no?
 
2012-11-09 12:18:28 PM  

Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly.


In Iowa, we use a mathematical algorithm and a bi-partisan redistricting panel.

Iowa Redistricting Process
 
2012-11-09 12:19:37 PM  

Bladel: Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly.

In Iowa, we use a mathematical algorithm and a bi-partisan redistricting panel.

Iowa Redistricting Process


Those are pretty-looking districts.
 
2012-11-09 12:22:05 PM  

ManateeGag: When Democrats lose: How can we do better next time.
When Republicans lose: How do we change the rules so we can do the same thing and win.


THIS
At NO point will the GOP say "Maybe we should rethink some of our less popular positions."
 
2012-11-09 12:22:52 PM  
Or we could just do a straight-up popular vote.

Oh, sorry--that won't work either. Gore would have won.
 
2012-11-09 12:23:49 PM  

doyner: Or we could just do a straight-up popular vote.

Oh, sorry--that won't work either. Gore would have won.


The mean old Black Man would have won this year, too.
 
2012-11-09 12:27:41 PM  

Bladel: Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly.

In Iowa, we use a mathematical algorithm and a bi-partisan redistricting panel.

Iowa Redistricting Process


Bladel: Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly.

In Iowa, we use a mathematical algorithm and a bi-partisan redistricting panel.

Iowa Redistricting Process


How about, stop making districts be geographically based?
1) you vote for your favorite candidate
2) all the votes are counted and split by party
3) the number of "districts" given to each party is determined by the proportion of voted that the party recieved.
4) the top voted candidates in each party become the congressmen

TADA
no gerrymandering needed
you vote will ALWAYS count, even if you are a republican in a city, or a democrat living on a farm.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
this will never happen, but it would be much closer to a true representative system, not the gerrymandered abortion we have today.
 
2012-11-09 12:47:46 PM  

ManateeGag: When Democrats lose: How can we do better next time.
When Republicans lose: How do we change the rules so we can do the same thing and win.


Ain't that the truth. Maybe some day it will occur to them that people just aren't buying what they're selling.
 
2012-11-09 12:58:39 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: They tried this in PA last year, but it died in the State Senate when one of the big cheeses from the Philly suburbs was basically told "Go for it, but you may as well file your retirement papers while you do" by his constituents. The GOP may be Party before Country, but these guys are Nice Salary/Pension/Perks before Party.


Hopefully there are enough constituents in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania (and other places that have R-controlled state governments but tend to vote D in Presidential elections, since those are the only places where this will even be floated) to stop this from happening. I tend to think there will be - states that are split like that tend to be relatively moderate.
 
2012-11-09 12:59:07 PM  
If only Romney had gotten those 12 more electoral votes... well, Obama would have still won pretty decisively.
 
2012-11-09 01:09:59 PM  

propasaurus: If only Romney had gotten those 12 more electoral votes... well, Obama would have still won pretty decisively.


Right, but had the same thing happened in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (all Republican-controlled states that went for Obama), Romney would have gotten to 270, enough for an Electoral College tie and the Presidency for Romney.
 
2012-11-09 01:12:24 PM  

El_Perro: propasaurus: If only Romney had gotten those 12 more electoral votes... well, Obama would have still won pretty decisively.

Right, but had the same thing happened in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (all Republican-controlled states that went for Obama), Romney would have gotten to 270, enough for an Electoral College tie and the Presidency for Romney.


and if we have used national popular vote, then obama still would have kicked rmoney's tiny white ass

so the lesson we are learning here, is to watch and see if the crazy fark swing states try to change the apportionment of their electors in the next few years.
 
2012-11-09 01:27:01 PM  
I'm really, really torn on the Electoral College. I used to be pretty gung-ho for it, but then I did a lot of research and reading behind the inherent problems with it, and now I can completely understand the other side of the coin that wants to get rid of it.

There is a problem both with keeping it and doing away with it, though. Right now, the country is extremely polarized politically. 21 states (and DC) will always vote Democratic, 22 states will always vote Republican, and there are about 6 states that can go either way. They basically hijack the election each time. We all have to sit around and wait for Ohio or Florida or Virginia to make up its mind. That's not working, and it's getting old. Scrapping the EC and going to straight direct vote, like we do for electing Congresscritters, would present the same problem, but featuring a different small group of states. Candidates would basically park themselves in the most populous states and campaign there, again ignoring 2/3 of the country. Instead of focusing on Florida and Ohio, they'd stay in California and Texas. Getting rid of it completely would however, open up a much wider voting pool, as voters who ordinarily are disenfranchised by the fact their state votes contrary to their own party identification, would vote as it would finally count for something.

The Electoral College was created to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but instead it's created a tyranny of the minority. Rather than the most populous states making sure they determined the presidency, a small group of states do it.

I guess in short, or TL;DR......I don't know what needs to be done to fix the electoral system in this country.
 
2012-11-09 01:30:36 PM  

namatad: El_Perro: propasaurus: If only Romney had gotten those 12 more electoral votes... well, Obama would have still won pretty decisively.

Right, but had the same thing happened in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (all Republican-controlled states that went for Obama), Romney would have gotten to 270, enough for an Electoral College tie and the Presidency for Romney.

and if we have used national popular vote, then obama still would have kicked rmoney's tiny white ass

so the lesson we are learning here, is to watch and see if the crazy fark swing states try to change the apportionment of their electors in the next few years.


And if the GOP actually had candidates and issues worth voting for, they wouldn't have to rig the game.
 
2012-11-09 01:30:43 PM  

nekom: ManateeGag: When Democrats lose: How can we do better next time.
When Republicans lose: How do we change the rules so we can do the same thing and win.

Ain't that the truth. Maybe some day it will occur to them that people just aren't buying what they're selling.


Started drinking a bit early today did we? From what I have heard from the right it was Romney not being the right salesman that lost it for them.
 
2012-11-09 01:34:51 PM  

propasaurus: And if the GOP actually had candidates and issues worth voting for, they wouldn't have to rig the game.


LOL
Now you are just being silly!!
What is wrong with White Power and Women belong in the Kitchen!!

LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-11-09 01:38:15 PM  

Elandriel: DamnYankees: If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.

It would certainly bring the problem of gerrymandering to the forefront. But probably not in a way that anything could be done about it.

I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly. The party in power draws the district lines based on the census. Then we elect representatives based on the district lines, who then draw the district lines again. And the party who drew the district lines, and is usually in power, is rarely if ever going to sign off on district normalization, which means gerrymandering is either here to stay or the voting populace has to essentially throw a huge enough fit to demand change.


gerrymandering is easy to fix. you just have a separate independent electoral commission that determines it. it's beyond insane to let the party in power do it.
 
2012-11-09 01:41:37 PM  
I see we have moved on from the voting machine software patch conspiracy.
 
2012-11-09 01:48:48 PM  

MrBallou: ManateeGag: When Democrats lose: How can we do better next time.
When Republicans lose: How do we change the rules so we can do the same thing and win.

This. Wish I could "smart" you twice.


Add me to that list.
 
2012-11-09 01:50:58 PM  

violentsalvation: I see we have moved on from the voting machine software patch conspiracy.


Maybe it flipped some votes. Maybe Husted really DID issue the change, in violation of a court order, solely to make the results easier to read. Whatever it did, obviously it didn't do enough to swing the state Republican.
 
2012-11-09 01:51:03 PM  

violentsalvation: I see we have moved on from the voting machine software patch conspiracy.


I was convinced that was going to be something big. At the very least, it should open some eyes to how little oversight those machines have.
 
2012-11-09 02:13:35 PM  
If you're going to do that, why not just let the House of Representatives elect a President?
 
2012-11-09 02:18:17 PM  

DamnYankees: If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.


It's a two way street. Republicans are no longer electable in Connecticut, not because they don't have any support, but all of our congressional districts have been gerrymandered to make sure it's impossible to win. The Republican candidate for the fifth district over here won something like 36 of the 42 towns in the congressional district, but he got annihilated in the inner cities, so it didn't matter. The Republicans tried to fix the problem last year after the census, but they just got steamrolled by the Democrats that gerrymandered themselves into office in the first place.
 
2012-11-09 02:23:41 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Those guys. They never stop thinking of ways to cheat their way into power.


Well, they sure as hell can't run on their great ideas

/relentless negativity gets real old real fast
 
2012-11-09 02:29:02 PM  

spman: DamnYankees: If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.

It's a two way street. Republicans are no longer electable in Connecticut, not because they don't have any support, but all of our congressional districts have been gerrymandered to make sure it's impossible to win. The Republican candidate for the fifth district over here won something like 36 of the 42 towns in the congressional district, but he got annihilated in the inner cities, so it didn't matter. The Republicans tried to fix the problem last year after the census, but they just got steamrolled by the Democrats that gerrymandered themselves into office in the first place.


yup
the ONLY way to fix this is to stop creating districts geographically.
apportion reps by percentage of votes received in the state. TADA
proper representation!!

HAHAHAHAHAA
which will never happen
 
2012-11-09 02:32:26 PM  

spman: DamnYankees: If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.

It's a two way street. Republicans are no longer electable in Connecticut, not because they don't have any support, but all of our congressional districts have been gerrymandered to make sure it's impossible to win. The Republican candidate for the fifth district over here won something like 36 of the 42 towns in the congressional district, but he got annihilated in the inner cities, so it didn't matter. The Republicans tried to fix the problem last year after the census, but they just got steamrolled by the Democrats that gerrymandered themselves into office in the first place.


Right, but this issue (gerrymandered EVs, not gerrymandering itself) would not be an issue in places like Connecticut (or, for that matter, places like Texas). Allocating EVs based on gerrymandered congressional districts is only politically feasible in states that (a) are controlled by one party AND (b) have a tendency to give their Electoral Votes to the other party. In practice, this means states (like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) that have state governments controlled by Republicans, but which have recently given their EVs to Democratic presidential candidates (I'm not aware of any states where the opposite happens). So, states like Connecticut would remain unchanged.
 
2012-11-09 02:35:42 PM  

Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly.


Yet another problem that could be fixed if the nation went to a national level proportional representation scheme.
 
2012-11-09 02:37:45 PM  
Hmm, still another really good reason to eliminate the electoral college. Thanks Republican guy from Ohio.
 
2012-11-09 02:38:47 PM  
The GOP should just come out and say they want to repeal women's suffrage and require voters to own real estate.
 
2012-11-09 02:39:07 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Those guys. They never stop thinking of ways to cheat their way into power.


They are trying every approach to win, except that dumb idea of improving themselves.
 
2012-11-09 02:41:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Bladel: Elandriel: I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly.

In Iowa, we use a mathematical algorithm and a bi-partisan redistricting panel.

Iowa Redistricting Process

Those are pretty-looking districts.


It would be a shame if something happened to them.
 
2012-11-09 02:41:11 PM  
In general, it takes more effort to do something than to just leave things as is. For instance, in Nebraska, after Obama won one Electoral Vote in 2008, the Republicans there tried to undo the "vote by congressional district" thing. It went nowhere, and so will these proposals.
 
2012-11-09 02:41:17 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I'm really, really torn on the Electoral College. I used to be pretty gung-ho for it, but then I did a lot of research and reading behind the inherent problems with it, and now I can completely understand the other side of the coin that wants to get rid of it.

There is a problem both with keeping it and doing away with it, though. Right now, the country is extremely polarized politically. 21 states (and DC) will always vote Democratic, 22 states will always vote Republican, and there are about 6 states that can go either way. They basically hijack the election each time. We all have to sit around and wait for Ohio or Florida or Virginia to make up its mind. That's not working, and it's getting old. Scrapping the EC and going to straight direct vote, like we do for electing Congresscritters, would present the same problem, but featuring a different small group of states. Candidates would basically park themselves in the most populous states and campaign there, again ignoring 2/3 of the country. Instead of focusing on Florida and Ohio, they'd stay in California and Texas. Getting rid of it completely would however, open up a much wider voting pool, as voters who ordinarily are disenfranchised by the fact their state votes contrary to their own party identification, would vote as it would finally count for something.

The Electoral College was created to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but instead it's created a tyranny of the minority. Rather than the most populous states making sure they determined the presidency, a small group of states do it.

I guess in short, or TL;DR......I don't know what needs to be done to fix the electoral system in this country.


I'd point out that they'd only be ignoring 2/3rds of the geography, but paying attention to the majority of the population. Seems a better way given it's "We the People" and no longer "We the landholders".
 
2012-11-09 02:41:52 PM  
We don't have slaves anymore. Its time we got rid of the Electoral College

It doesn't take a day to travel from your farm to vote anymore and we are no longer an agrarian society. Its time we stopped voting on tuesdays as to not interfere with the sabbath and Wednesday's market day.
 
2012-11-09 02:42:31 PM  

Elandriel: DamnYankees: If they do this in OH, PA and FL, the Democrats will be completely farked due to gerrymandering.

It would certainly bring the problem of gerrymandering to the forefront. But probably not in a way that anything could be done about it.

I wonder how gerrymandering can ever be fixed honestly. The party in power draws the district lines based on the census. Then we elect representatives based on the district lines, who then draw the district lines again. And the party who drew the district lines, and is usually in power, is rarely if ever going to sign off on district normalization, which means gerrymandering is either here to stay or the voting populace has to essentially throw a huge enough fit to demand change.


Some states have non-partisan commissions or judges draw the lines. Iowa has done this for years. California passed a proposition requiring this after the 2010 census (which ended up in Democrats picking up seats).
 
2012-11-09 02:42:45 PM  
That man needs to be charged with electoral misconduct and abuse of power for his actions during the campaign.
 
2012-11-09 02:43:04 PM  
Ah yes, the Republican mantra. If you can't win, cheat.
 
2012-11-09 02:43:09 PM  
Republicans: If you can't win on the issues, game the system.

The Republican Party is the party of racism, voter oppression and hatred of women. Own it, you bastards.
 
2012-11-09 02:43:13 PM  
This guy is just chock full of nasty ideas, isn't he? It's like he goes to work every morning and sits down and asks himself, "How can I skew the election today?"
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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