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)   Remember that VA electoral college vote that Democrats opposed vehemently? Yeah, it turns out that they also supported similar bills in the past   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 42
    More: Amusing, Democrats, vote splitting, electoral colleges, electoral vote, sore losers, elections  
•       •       •

797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2013 at 11:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-28 10:10:27 AM  
Well, if it works for you support it. If it doesn't oppose it. You dont think politicians are opportunistic?!?
 
2013-01-28 10:26:20 AM  
Watts says she has since changed her position "180 degres" in response to the post-2010 round of redistricting, which solidified Republican control of the state's Congressional delegation.

This isn't an unreasonable position, necessarily.  I could see value in the switch IF there was a set of laws in place to create local, non-partisan panels that ensure fair redistricting nationwide and eliminate gerrymandering.  There'd have to be checks in place to resist state government tinkering or persuasion.  Getting that established for the sake of fairness in the House is much more important than any electoral college changes.
 
2013-01-28 10:43:49 AM  
I'm just here to watch Republicans bash someone for an idea that they agree with.
 
2013-01-28 10:47:15 AM  
And Republicans opposed them in the past.  So both sides are bad.  Now, can we continue to talk about how the Republicans are trying to use these measures to establish themselves as a permanent minority ruling party?
 
2013-01-28 10:55:06 AM  
Worthless P.O.S politicians.
 
2013-01-28 11:02:35 AM  
If you're insistent on changing how the electoral college votes are meted out, do it right and do it by the percentage of the popular vote. These district plans are pure nonsense and allow gerrymandering from whichever party is in power. Needless to say that is ridiculous, no matter which party does it
 
2013-01-28 11:03:14 AM  
Yeah, and Dems wanted to eliminate gerrymandering while Pubes wanted to expand it.

Intent matters.
 
2013-01-28 11:06:48 AM  
In other news, we already have a portion of the Federal government determined by popular votes in Congressional districts.
 
2013-01-28 11:07:26 AM  
Isn't the real problem here the sneaky and underhanded way that the VA GOP rammed this through? The idea itself is not without merit, but the way it was enacted just smells like dirty politics.
 
2013-01-28 11:09:56 AM  
Yes, both parties try to game the system for their own advantage. Tu quoque is not a valid defense.

Make the vote a popular vote. One citizen, one vote.
 
2013-01-28 11:10:01 AM  
Bad idea is still a bad idea regardless of which side they are on.
 
2013-01-28 11:10:27 AM  

Lumpmoose: Watts says she has since changed her position "180 degres" in response to the post-2010 round of redistricting, which solidified Republican control of the state's Congressional delegation.

This isn't an unreasonable position, necessarily.  I could see value in the switch IF there was a set of laws in place to create local, non-partisan panels that ensure fair redistricting nationwide and eliminate gerrymandering.  There'd have to be checks in place to resist state government tinkering or persuasion.  Getting that established for the sake of fairness in the House is much more important than any electoral college changes.


Except that even if you institute "fair redistricting" laws, inevitably, districts are going to be rather gerrymandered just through natural clustering of people with similar ideologies. That's the nature of single-member districts. You have to change that game to break the gerrymandering cycle. Use multi-member districts.
 
2013-01-28 11:11:41 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Isn't the real problem here the sneaky and underhanded way that the VA GOP rammed this through? The idea itself is not without merit, but the way it was enacted just smells like dirty politics.


Yes, that is the main point. Kinda like Walker "Hey guys, no debate on taking away collective bargaining!" If you have to enact legislation in some dirty-ass manner, chances are you know the bill's not that great.
 
2013-01-28 11:12:39 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Isn't the real problem here the sneaky and underhanded way that the VA GOP rammed this through? The idea itself is not without merit, but the way it was enacted just smells like dirty politics.


I think it's more where the plan is getting talked up. Michigan. Virginia. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. All states where the Republican Party controls the legislature and the governor but whose electoral votes went to Obama in 2012. Do you hear them talking about this change in Texas? Or Georgia? Or South Carolina? I haven't heard a goddamn peep. It's blatantly political.
 
2013-01-28 11:16:44 AM  

wambu: Worthless P.O.S politicians.


I don't know, point of sale politicians are kind of convenient when giving bribes.
 
2013-01-28 11:17:42 AM  

Serious Black: Lumpmoose: Watts says she has since changed her position "180 degres" in response to the post-2010 round of redistricting, which solidified Republican control of the state's Congressional delegation.

This isn't an unreasonable position, necessarily.  I could see value in the switch IF there was a set of laws in place to create local, non-partisan panels that ensure fair redistricting nationwide and eliminate gerrymandering.  There'd have to be checks in place to resist state government tinkering or persuasion.  Getting that established for the sake of fairness in the House is much more important than any electoral college changes.

Except that even if you institute "fair redistricting" laws, inevitably, districts are going to be rather gerrymandered just through natural clustering of people with similar ideologies. That's the nature of single-member districts. You have to change that game to break the gerrymandering cycle. Use multi-member districts.


"Fair redistricting" doesn't mean that every district tries to be centrist.  Some will be rock red or blue for generations.  And I know that two different "fairness" interpretations can lead to two different results (or more).

Representative democracy is messy but we can still design a much better system than we have right now.  A good, loose goal would be that the delegation party ratio per state approximately matches the total House popular vote party ratio per state.  I think we can get a heck of a lot closer.
 
2013-01-28 11:19:05 AM  
So then "BOTH SIDES BAD!!!" works here?
 
2013-01-28 11:19:12 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Isn't the real problem here the sneaky and underhanded way that the VA GOP rammed this through? The idea itself is not without merit, but the way it was enacted just smells like dirty politics.


More than that.  It's part of a larger national effort by the Republican Party to disenfranchise Democratic voters, break the power of the unions, seize control of traditionally Democratic states and establish themselves as a permanent minority ruling party.  Voter id laws, gerrymandering, district allocation of electoral votes, elimination of early voting, right-to-work laws... they're all part of a grander plan and the GOP aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
 
2013-01-28 11:21:29 AM  

Mentat: More than that.  It's part of a larger national effort by the Republican Party to disenfranchise Democratic voters, break the power of the unions, seize control of traditionally Democratic states and establish themselves as a permanent minority ruling party.  Voter id laws, gerrymandering, district allocation of electoral votes, elimination of early voting, right-to-work laws... they're all part of a grander plan and the GOP aren't even trying to hide it anymore.


Legitimate elections are won by Republicans. Ergo, Democrats who hold public office won by cheating.
 
2013-01-28 11:22:13 AM  

Lumpmoose: Serious Black: Lumpmoose: Watts says she has since changed her position "180 degres" in response to the post-2010 round of redistricting, which solidified Republican control of the state's Congressional delegation.

This isn't an unreasonable position, necessarily.  I could see value in the switch IF there was a set of laws in place to create local, non-partisan panels that ensure fair redistricting nationwide and eliminate gerrymandering.  There'd have to be checks in place to resist state government tinkering or persuasion.  Getting that established for the sake of fairness in the House is much more important than any electoral college changes.

Except that even if you institute "fair redistricting" laws, inevitably, districts are going to be rather gerrymandered just through natural clustering of people with similar ideologies. That's the nature of single-member districts. You have to change that game to break the gerrymandering cycle. Use multi-member districts.

"Fair redistricting" doesn't mean that every district tries to be centrist.  Some will be rock red or blue for generations.  And I know that two different "fairness" interpretations can lead to two different results (or more).

Representative democracy is messy but we can still design a much better system than we have right now.  A good, loose goal would be that the delegation party ratio per state approximately matches the total House popular vote party ratio per state.  I think we can get a heck of a lot closer.


I'd hardly call it fair if somebody living in a 60-40 district never got somebody to represent their views in the government.
 
2013-01-28 11:22:36 AM  
It really isn't that hard to have an independent group that assigns districts based on geography, industry, equal populations, and demographics.

You know, like every almost other Western democracy does.

Boundary Commission for England

You don't even have to do much thinking, just lift the UK's system.
 
2013-01-28 11:25:25 AM  

Bungles: It really isn't that hard to have an independent group that assigns districts based on geography, industry, equal populations, and demographics.

You know, like every almost other Western democracy does.

Boundary Commission for England

You don't even have to do much thinking, just lift the UK's system.


Hell, if you're making a decision based on things that come from a database, why not just have a computer decide it and then a 3-person panel approve it? Very low overhead.
 
2013-01-28 11:29:02 AM  

Serious Black: Lumpmoose: Serious Black: Lumpmoose: Watts says she has since changed her position "180 degres" in response to the post-2010 round of redistricting, which solidified Republican control of the state's Congressional delegation.

This isn't an unreasonable position, necessarily.  I could see value in the switch IF there was a set of laws in place to create local, non-partisan panels that ensure fair redistricting nationwide and eliminate gerrymandering.  There'd have to be checks in place to resist state government tinkering or persuasion.  Getting that established for the sake of fairness in the House is much more important than any electoral college changes.

Except that even if you institute "fair redistricting" laws, inevitably, districts are going to be rather gerrymandered just through natural clustering of people with similar ideologies. That's the nature of single-member districts. You have to change that game to break the gerrymandering cycle. Use multi-member districts.

"Fair redistricting" doesn't mean that every district tries to be centrist.  Some will be rock red or blue for generations.  And I know that two different "fairness" interpretations can lead to two different results (or more).

Representative democracy is messy but we can still design a much better system than we have right now.  A good, loose goal would be that the delegation party ratio per state approximately matches the total House popular vote party ratio per state.  I think we can get a heck of a lot closer.

I'd hardly call it fair if somebody living in a 60-40 district never got somebody to represent their views in the government.


There's no reason someone from the opposite party can't represent some of the other side's views or at least be a good representative in general.  It requires a moderate candidate, especially for a 60-40 district.  Eliminating gerrymandering might help that cause but there are other solutions to breaking the partisan divide (i.e. marked Republican intransigence) that are beyond the scope of a fair redistricting plan.
 
2013-01-28 11:32:43 AM  
Electoral vote splitting really isn't in the political interests of swing states, because it will make them matter less in presidential elections. So to be clear, Republicans in these states are contemplating undermining their states' own political interests by undermining their voting power in the electoral college.

In principle, electoral vote splitting may or may not be a bad idea. It might help the minority of voters in those states feel better represented in the electoral college. A system of one man, one vote would be better by far. But for now that's not what we have.

But it is seriously problematic that Republican legislatures in swing states and blue leaning states are discussing electoral vote splitting as a way of systematically undermining majority rule. If anyone wonders if there's the smallest chance Republicans are really motivated by fairness to the minority of voters in these states, your answer can be found in the fact that they're NOT talking about doing this in any of the deep red states. Their motives are purely cynical. 100%.

And in the states where they're talking about splitting votes by Congressional district, it's even worse. Because they're not talking about giving the minority of voters in those states a minority share of their states' electoral votes. They're talking about giving the minority of voters in those states the majority of their states' electoral votes.

Don't think for a minute it's just the Republicans in these states who are the assholes. This is a coordinated effort between the RNC and ALEC, a powerful far-right lobby that influences state legislatures across the country, and is comprised at its top levels of GOP bigwigs. This is an effort of the national Republican Party, its members, and its leaders. It is fair to hold this against all Republicans at the state and national level.

And to be clear for those of you who think the country wasn't intended to be run by majority rule, remember that right-wing icon James Madison in Federalist 58 called majority rule the "fundamental principle of free government." Not a fundamental principle. The fundamental principle of free government.

Link

What the Republicans are discussing doing here is corrupt, anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-founding fathers, and unpatriotic. Even for them. Every fair minded person regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof should be outraged at what they're suggesting.

This is what real tyranny looks like, right-wingers. When the minority rigs the system to rule the majority. But for some reason I don't here any of you worthless crazies screaming about "2nd Amendment remedies" here.

Wonder why.

Wait, no I don't. It's because not a single one of you has a drop of real patriotism in your blood.
 
2013-01-28 11:34:16 AM  

Lumpmoose: Serious Black: Lumpmoose: Serious Black: Lumpmoose: Watts says she has since changed her position "180 degres" in response to the post-2010 round of redistricting, which solidified Republican control of the state's Congressional delegation.

This isn't an unreasonable position, necessarily.  I could see value in the switch IF there was a set of laws in place to create local, non-partisan panels that ensure fair redistricting nationwide and eliminate gerrymandering.  There'd have to be checks in place to resist state government tinkering or persuasion.  Getting that established for the sake of fairness in the House is much more important than any electoral college changes.

Except that even if you institute "fair redistricting" laws, inevitably, districts are going to be rather gerrymandered just through natural clustering of people with similar ideologies. That's the nature of single-member districts. You have to change that game to break the gerrymandering cycle. Use multi-member districts.

"Fair redistricting" doesn't mean that every district tries to be centrist.  Some will be rock red or blue for generations.  And I know that two different "fairness" interpretations can lead to two different results (or more).

Representative democracy is messy but we can still design a much better system than we have right now.  A good, loose goal would be that the delegation party ratio per state approximately matches the total House popular vote party ratio per state.  I think we can get a heck of a lot closer.

I'd hardly call it fair if somebody living in a 60-40 district never got somebody to represent their views in the government.

There's no reason someone from the opposite party can't represent some of the other side's views or at least be a good representative in general.  It requires a moderate candidate, especially for a 60-40 district.  Eliminating gerrymandering might help that cause but there are other solutions to breaking the partisan divide (i.e. marked Republican intransigence) that are beyond the scope of a fair redistricting plan.


Requiring the use of multi-member districts would be a redistricting plan. I think it would be fair. I think that alone would push the parties (especially the GOP) towards moderation. The GOP is trying to choose the most extreme person who can get 50%+1 votes. That strategy would start backfiring in a hurry in a multi-member district system.
 
2013-01-28 11:59:23 AM  
Increase the size of the House of Representative to 8000.
 
2013-01-28 12:06:15 PM  
I'd probably be ok with splitting the electoral votes only if:

1- It's proportionally split based on total state popular voting results. Not by congressional district
2- All states agree to follow these same rules simultaneously.
 
2013-01-28 12:20:38 PM  
In Arizona they had lawsuits because Brewer was unhappy with the fair redistricting
 
2013-01-28 12:56:47 PM  
I had a crazy idea: exactly double the size of the House. Each district elects a representative, plus the total vote over a state is used to elect an equal-sized slate by proportional representation. So that in the case of Virginia, where for instance a 55% Democratic vote led to a 7-4 Republican majority, the proportional slate would add 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans, thus making it closer to the true proportion (though still a Republican lead). By this method, every citizen still has an individual Representative associated with their district, but they also have a more accurate breakdown of the Congress by party.
 
2013-01-28 01:02:33 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Increase the size of the House of Representative to 8000.


This is probably what should really happen, but it would dilute the power of flyover rednecks, so it won't happen. The'd stop getting their welfare checks.
 
2013-01-28 01:12:55 PM  
This does not make it right in either case. The Dems were wrong then too.
 
2013-01-28 01:57:13 PM  

RminusQ: I had a crazy idea: exactly double the size of the House. Each district elects a representative, plus the total vote over a state is used to elect an equal-sized slate by proportional representation. So that in the case of Virginia, where for instance a 55% Democratic vote led to a 7-4 Republican majority, the proportional slate would add 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans, thus making it closer to the true proportion (though still a Republican lead). By this method, every citizen still has an individual Representative associated with their district, but they also have a more accurate breakdown of the Congress by party.


Yeah, but you can't legislate automatically sending a certain party to congress. That can open up a real bad can of worms
 
2013-01-28 03:09:15 PM  
Tough to see the Repubs floundering so hard on circumventing the Constitution, seeing as how THAT'S apparently a better alternative than "stop treating non-white, non-wealthy males as subhumans."

Saddest part is that it might work...
 
2013-01-28 03:17:01 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Tough to see the Repubs floundering so hard on circumventing the Constitution, seeing as how THAT'S apparently a better alternative than "stop treating non-white, non-wealthy males as subhumans."

Saddest part is that it might work...


And you're saying this in a thread talking about the Dems doing the exact same thing?

Dude, you totally win!
 
2013-01-28 04:14:35 PM  

cabbyman: Empty Matchbook: Tough to see the Repubs floundering so hard on circumventing the Constitution, seeing as how THAT'S apparently a better alternative than "stop treating non-white, non-wealthy males as subhumans."

Saddest part is that it might work...

And you're saying this in a thread talking about the Dems doing the exact same thing?

Dude, you totally win!


A handful of Democrats, apparently not even the majority of their caucus in a single house of a single state

vs.

A large number of Republicans, including state party leaders and legislature house leaders, in multiple states.

Dude, you totally suck!
 
2013-01-28 04:40:25 PM  

RminusQ: cabbyman: Empty Matchbook: Tough to see the Repubs floundering so hard on circumventing the Constitution, seeing as how THAT'S apparently a better alternative than "stop treating non-white, non-wealthy males as subhumans."

Saddest part is that it might work...

And you're saying this in a thread talking about the Dems doing the exact same thing?

Dude, you totally win!

A handful of Democrats, apparently not even the majority of their caucus in a single house of a single state

vs.

A large number of Republicans, including state party leaders and legislature house leaders, in multiple states.

Dude, you totally suck!


I know it hurts the first time you realize your team sucks. We'll help you through this.
 
2013-01-28 05:01:59 PM  

RminusQ: I had a crazy idea: exactly double the size of the House. Each district elects a representative, plus the total vote over a state is used to elect an equal-sized slate by proportional representation. So that in the case of Virginia, where for instance a 55% Democratic vote led to a 7-4 Republican majority, the proportional slate would add 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans, thus making it closer to the true proportion (though still a Republican lead). By this method, every citizen still has an individual Representative associated with their district, but they also have a more accurate breakdown of the Congress by party.


CGP Grey explains this idea more fully.
 
2013-01-28 05:14:11 PM  
Politicians will support whatever gets them into office, regardless of whether it's conducive to giving people a voice or the long-term health of the nation. Film at 11.
 
2013-01-28 05:15:08 PM  

andersoncouncil42: This does not make it right in either case. The Dems were wrong then too.


That.
 
2013-01-28 08:31:46 PM  

GAT_00: I'm just here to watch Republicans bash someone for an idea that they agree with.


I'm here to watch the Democrats beat the horse they wanted to ride a few years ago.
 
2013-01-28 09:16:44 PM  
It's a crappy idea no matter which party supports it.
 
2013-01-29 02:37:35 AM  

cabbyman: Empty Matchbook: Tough to see the Repubs floundering so hard on circumventing the Constitution, seeing as how THAT'S apparently a better alternative than "stop treating non-white, non-wealthy males as subhumans."

Saddest part is that it might work...

And you're saying this in a thread talking about the Dems doing the exact same thing?

Dude, you totally win!


Yeah dude! Tell me MORE about how Jenny McCarthy is EXACTLY like Mitch McConnell!
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

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