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.

(Slate)   Well, voter ID didn't work. Banning early and extended voting didn't work. I guess we'll just have to make those pesky urban votes worth less than Real American votes are   (slate.com) divider line 143
    More: Obvious, real Americans, GOP, voter ID, Stanley Kurtz, Appalachia  
•       •       •

6883 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2012 at 5:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 09:08:49 PM  
If we're going to make hillbillies count more, what do I have to do to get myself one of these super-votes? Lose a few teeth, learn to play the banjo, and fark my sister?
 
2012-12-12 09:11:29 PM  

jjorsett: California politicians were talking about a system like this. Of course, in this state it would have benefited Democrats.


How?

The Democrats already receive ALL of California's electoral votes every four years, and will for the foreseeable future.

How would dividing up those electoral votes in any way possible benefit them?
 
2012-12-12 09:15:48 PM  

Mrbogey: Now, I just spent time doing research which will no doubt be ignored.


Oh, no...by singling out a couple of pissed-off Nebraskans, you've totally proved your point.

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.


Does this butthurt rant count as responding to me, or am I still waiting for you to get around to it
 
2012-12-12 09:18:20 PM  

cchris_39: Maybe the whole country can be as successful as the blue state metro areas.


Yeah, all the places where people are and there are things to do, suck. Paradise is a chain restaurant and driving for an hour to WalMart.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:44 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If we're going to make hillbillies count more, what do I have to do to get myself one of these super-votes? Lose a few teeth, learn to play the banjo, and fark my sister?


If we're going to make blacks count more, what do I have to do to get myself one of these super-votes? Drop out of school, violently rob elderly people, and kill a baby with stray bullets?

Is turning about for fair play hate speech? Let's find out.
 
2012-12-12 09:23:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, no...by singling out a couple of pissed-off Nebraskans, you've totally proved your point.


Yup, I nailed your response you disingenuous liar.
 
2012-12-12 09:54:31 PM  

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, no...by singling out a couple of pissed-off Nebraskans, you've totally proved your point.

Yup, I nailed your response you disingenuous liar.


Uh-huh...you sure showed me!
 
2012-12-12 10:06:06 PM  
What the hell? Did a halfway house lose its funding or something?

/Oh, wait. Finals are over
 
2012-12-12 10:56:38 PM  
Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.
 
2012-12-12 11:13:34 PM  
I think we could make each of their votes a nice, even decimal. How does 0.6 sound?
 
2012-12-12 11:38:43 PM  
Then there was the educated Texan from Texas who
looked like someone in Technicolor and felt,patriotically, that people of means - decent folk -
should be given more votes than drifters, whores, criminals, degenerates, atheists and indecent folk
- people without means.

Yossarian was unspringing rhythms in the letters the day they brought the Texan in. It was another
quiet, hot, untroubled day. The heat pressed heavily on the roof, stifling sound. Dunbar was lying
motionless on his back again with his eyes staring up at the ceiling like a doll's. He was working
hard at increasing his life span. He did it by cultivating boredom. Dunbar was working so hard at
increasing his life span that Yossarian thought he was dead. They put the Texan in a bed in the
middle of the ward, and it wasn't long before he donated his views.

Dunbar sat up like a shot. 'That's it,' he cried excitedly. 'There was something missing - all the time
I knew there was something missing - and now I know what it is.' He banged his fist down into his
palm. 'No patriotism,' he declared.

'You're right,' Yossarian shouted back. 'You're right, you're right, you're right. The hot dog, the
Brooklyn Dodgers. Mom's apple pie. That's what everyone's fighting for. But who's fighting for the
decent folk? Who's fighting for more votes for the decent folk? There's no patriotism, that's what it
is. And no matriotism, either.'

/they should give him two votes
 
2012-12-13 12:14:31 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: spiderpaz: Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.

When? Citation, or you're lying.

Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I do remember people trying to get a proportional thing going in CA. It was Republicans, of course and it went nowhere.

I do remember the general sentiment among voters was pro-proportional if and when it is enacted by all states simultaneously, but the Republicans aren't interested in that idea.


What I remember was a plan to create essentially remove the electoral college by having 270 EV worth of states pledge them to whomever won the popular vote, thereby making the president popularly elected. I don't remember hearing of a proportional representation idea by congressional district.
 
2012-12-13 12:16:37 AM  
Most Americans live in metro areas. This has been the case for the last twenty years, at least, and the numbers increase every year.
 
2012-12-13 12:25:30 AM  

Mrbogey: Don't believe that link? Have another. Link


That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.
 
2012-12-13 12:39:25 AM  

fusillade762: Mrbogey: Don't believe that link? Have another. Link

That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.


The link contained brief comments by the author of the Nebraska law:
"Realistically," said former State Sen. Dianna Schimek of Lincoln, "it would be better if we didn't have the Electoral College. But we're never going to do away with that. So I think the law we have would probably be the best system for everybody - it gives everybody a feeling that their vote counts at the grass-roots level."

Schimek authored the 1991 legislation that allowed Nebraska to divvy up electoral votes by district. Maine has had such a law since 1972.

"I thought other states would think it was a good idea, too," Schimek said. "It has been proposed in some but didn't pass. Part of that is because some of the bigger states don't want to give up their electoral strength."


I included that link because some people refuse to believe some things they're told (ie.- "Yea, Dems wrote the law but only to placate Republicans") So I made sure to grab a quote by her.
 
2012-12-13 01:28:09 AM  
I mean, c'mon, there's just so many more people in the cities than in rural America-sorry, sorry I meant Real 'Murica that their votes shouldn't count as much. Maybe we could give urban voters a fraction of a vote, I don't know, say, 3/5 of a vote. That would balance it out.
 
2012-12-13 01:46:09 AM  
Everyone will vote like Florida next round.
 
2012-12-13 02:13:45 AM  

Mrbogey: fusillade762: Mrbogey: Don't believe that link? Have another. Link

That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.

The link contained brief comments by the author of the Nebraska law:
"Realistically," said former State Sen. Dianna Schimek of Lincoln, "it would be better if we didn't have the Electoral College. But we're never going to do away with that. So I think the law we have would probably be the best system for everybody - it gives everybody a feeling that their vote counts at the grass-roots level."

Schimek authored the 1991 legislation that allowed Nebraska to divvy up electoral votes by district. Maine has had such a law since 1972.

"I thought other states would think it was a good idea, too," Schimek said. "It has been proposed in some but didn't pass. Part of that is because some of the bigger states don't want to give up their electoral strength."

I included that link because some people refuse to believe some things they're told (ie.- "Yea, Dems wrote the law but only to placate Republicans") So I made sure to grab a quote by her.


So the Democrats were all over this idea in exactly one state where it has done pretty much zero to help them.

How exactly is this comparable to what the GOP wants to do now?
 
2012-12-13 02:26:07 AM  
Cheating to win. It's the Republican way!
 
2012-12-13 04:01:22 AM  

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.

A primer- Link
Well since it's being done in 2 states already... who championed the law in Nebraska?
Well the bill was created by Dianna Schimeck... who is a democrat. It was narrowly passed by a vote of 25-23 before it was signed into law by Ben Nelson... who is a Democrat.
Don't believe that link? Have another. Link
Why, in fact, Democrats were proud of this all the way up to as recently as May of this year- Link
Nebraska Republicans tried to change it in 2010- The Democratic Guv stopped them. Link

So there you are, Democrats liked this idea until Republicans proposed it.

Now, I just spent time doing research which will no doubt be ignored. I assume, like in the past, no one will bother to apologize to me for the vicious slurs despite being correct.

Lost Thought 00: If I ever meet these people in person, they will not survive the day.

So you advocate the indiscriminate murder of people who you disagree with politically. The hacks who claim the Tea Party is violent will never call you out on it so feel free to be as unamerican as you can be.


------------------------

It seems the proper generalization is that when a state generally votes for one party in a presidential election, and the other party gets control of all the levers of power in the state, you'll get an EV splitting bill at some point.
 
2012-12-13 04:27:04 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Excuse me Titsy,


Wasn't Titsy one of the rejected dwarf names from Disney's version of Snow White? I seem to recall that from AIOTM.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:32 AM  

naughtyrev: Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?


I am AMAZED that this took 10 posts to be stated. what is wrong with you people?
 
2012-12-13 05:21:11 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: WE GET IT.

HE'S BLACK.


um... are you in the right thread? what does this have to do with anything?

or are you just so used to posting this in every thread.


/ WE GET IT

// YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHEN TO USE YOUR STOLEN CATCHPHRASE
 
2012-12-13 07:21:58 AM  

I sound fat: DjangoStonereaver: WE GET IT.

HE'S BLACK.

um... are you in the right thread? what does this have to do with anything?

or are you just so used to posting this in every thread.


/ WE GET IT

// YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHEN TO USE YOUR STOLEN CATCHPHRASE


Um...the reason why this is being proposed is to disenfrancise VA voters who voted for Obama. Hence, "we get it, he's black".
 
2012-12-13 07:46:32 AM  

Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.


Cite? The following nonsense I have never heard before:

The state's two remaining votes would go to whoever received the "highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts."

So two of the states electoral votes are to be assigned by electoral vote.
 
2012-12-13 07:50:54 AM  

hackalope: I don't remember hearing of a proportional representation idea by congressional district.


A couple of other states have had movements to split their electoral vote as Nebraska does. But this BS about assigning the remaining two electoral votes based on who won the majority of the other electoral votes is new.
 
2012-12-13 07:56:25 AM  
It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
2012-12-13 08:00:07 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: This guy may be onto something. But how much less, is the question. If I may, I propose that we make "urban" votes worth 3/5 of a "Real AmericanTM" vote. What do y'all think?


Honestly surprised that took 7 posts.

/rich white southerners still have a hard on for marginallizing black people.
 
2012-12-13 08:26:31 AM  
You know I try to remain objective. I have voted for Republicans in the past. I am currently registered `unaffiliated', and I like to think that both sides are bad, and to some extent they are. But when you have one party whose `strategy' is to prevent a certain demographic from voting, it's a pretty disgusting paradigm.
 
2012-12-13 09:06:32 AM  
"Although it remains almost totally unknown to the public," writes Kurtz in the second book, "a great deal of Obama's early political career was devoted to the goal of turning Michael Jackson black again."
 
2012-12-13 09:59:07 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Here's how State Senator Charles Carrico explains it.

People in my district - they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don't mean anything if they're outvoted in metropolitan districts. It can go either way - it doesn't necessarily mean that one political party is going to be favored over another.

Oh, you feel discouraged! Your vote doesn't mean anything if more people disagree with you than agree! Oh, let us hold this poor dear's hand and make sure that his vote means something! Which means necessarily simply asking him who he wants to be elected and the majority be damned!


I'm sure Democrats in the Deep South feel discouraged too when they go to vote. Got any help for them while you're at it?

Oh, right, this is only for Republicans in states with Republican dominated state legislatures, whose state just happened to vote for Obama. What's next? Gerrymandering all the Democratically majority cities into one district so the majority of electoral votes end up going to Republican Presidential candidates?
 
2012-12-13 10:12:25 AM  

Bendal: What's next? Gerrymandering all the Democratically majority cities into one district so the majority of electoral votes end up going to Republican Presidential candidates?


Dude, that already happened. Haven't you been paying any attention since 2010?

The Republicans gerrymandered the shiat out of a ton of states in the 2010 re-districting. It's only because they already have done that that they are now trying this electoral-college scheme (only Obama-voting states, of course).

The Republican Party is without question the greatest current threat to American democracy and freedom. They will lie, cheat, game the system, suppress minority votes, change voting rules and hours, purge voter registration lists, throw away registration cards, install voting machines with no paper trail and then tamper with them, alter absentee ballots - these are all things that actually happened. They are completely shameless and unscrupulous and will do anything in their lust to gain and hold power. So it should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that they are now trying to gerrymander the electoral college.

The GOP are enemies of democracy, and they must be fought tenaciously by all freedom-loving and patriotic Americans.
 
2012-12-13 12:34:40 PM  

Pincy: Cheating to win. It's the Republican way!


How can I reech theez keeds?
 
2012-12-13 12:54:35 PM  

eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.


There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
 
2012-12-13 01:06:10 PM  

badLogic: eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/


I've been thinking about this idea for a bit. What happens in this hypothetical?

Suppose a number of states equalling 270 electoral votes sign on to this national popular vote compact, causing it to go into effect for the next presidental election or two. However, after the next Census and re-apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes, the group of states now longer controls a majority of the electoral college, but instead only 268 or something? Does the bill become void again at that point?
 
2012-12-13 01:09:53 PM  
Millennium 2012-12-13 07:56:25 AM


It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Its funny how, a 100,000 years ago, the Saber-tooth Party was proposing plans very like this one in the 100,000 B.C. election (and for that matter, the Mastodon Party were opposing those plans at every turn). The more thing change, the more they really aren't the same.

Hmmm, I wonder what might have happened in the 2000 election that might have prompted that response. Because I'm sure it was totally the same thing . . .

/What's with the all the idiots? Did WND have some sort of purge?
 
2012-12-13 01:15:12 PM  

Millennium: It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.


[citation needed]

The only plan even remotely like this I've seen come out of the Democratic party was abolishing the electoral college altogether and going with a national popular vote, which I support, as it would give the people more of a voice. This nonsense of giving entrenched politicos yet another election to gerrymander would do the exact opposite.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:41 PM  

Doc Daneeka: badLogic: eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I've been thinking about this idea for a bit. What happens in this hypothetical?

Suppose a number of states equalling 270 electoral votes sign on to this national popular vote compact, causing it to go into effect for the next presidental election or two. However, after the next Census and re-apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes, the group of states now longer controls a majority of the electoral college, but instead only 268 or something? Does the bill become void again at that point?


No idea, as I have not been following it that closely. I would guess that once the tipping point hit, other states would jump on the bandwagon as to not be made irrelevant.
 
2012-12-13 03:30:43 PM  
But the Obama voter fraud sure worked, huh?
 
2012-12-13 04:46:04 PM  

tony41454: But the Obama voter fraud sure worked, huh?


Are you that unskewed polls guy?
 
2012-12-13 05:05:02 PM  

Halli: tony41454: But the Obama voter fraud sure worked, huh?

Are you that unskewed polls guy?


Come on man, everyone know ACORN stole the election for Obama.
 
2012-12-13 06:09:54 PM  

COMALite J: Vlad_the_Inaner: has anyone worked out what a metropolitian voter's vote would be effectively worth compared to the rest of the state, based on population ratios.

Would it be approximately 3/5ths?

For future reference, try this: ⅗.



UTF-8 is the devil's character encoding

/gee, I rated a double quotation
 
2012-12-14 04:16:20 PM  

badLogic: No idea, as I have not been following it that closely. I would guess that once the tipping point hit, other states would jump on the bandwagon as to not be made irrelevant.


I believe there was also a proportional vote initiative, where the state's electoral votes would be divided proportionally among the candidates based on the popular vote within the state. So, California, for example, which has 55 electoral votes (IIRC) would give 34 of them to Obama, 20 to Mitt Romney, and one to Gary Johnson in the last election (if I did the math right).

The flaw in this plan, of course, is that states that don't have very many electoral votes wouldn't effectively be able to divide them among candidates - if you have less than 10 electoral votes (over half of the states) and your state's popular vote always ends up with a less than 10% margin between the candidates, the EVs will always be split evenly, with maybe one swing vote going to the winner of the state. So it would more closely mirror the popular vote, but would still have enough noise in there to defeat the will of the people. The only benefit from that proposal was that third parties would be able to qualify for more stuff since they would be able to win electoral votes.
 
Displayed 43 of 143 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report