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)   What? You mean to tell me that trying to rig the electoral college for a controversial election to hand Pennsylvania over to Mitt "I'm richer than all y'all" Romney *might* not play well with the voters come the gubernatorial election? Shocking   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 53
    More: Obvious, systems, Pennsylvania Republicans, Tammany Hall, Democratic Governors Association, electoral colleges, swing states, Rep. Joe Sestak, Tom Corbett  
•       •       •

3567 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2013 at 9:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-02 09:23:37 AM  
If they haven't done this yet, I don't really think there ever going to. Not in this election cycle at least.
 
2013-05-02 09:32:17 AM  
Why do TPM articles migrate to the right on mobile?
 
2013-05-02 09:33:27 AM  
Or it could be that Corbett is about to get his ass kicked in 2014 and they have to push through as much stuff as possible before he gets a political beatdown of historic proportions.
 
2013-05-02 09:34:20 AM  

DamnYankees: If they haven't done this yet, I don't really think there ever going to. Not in this election cycle at least.


I dunno. If the Penn GOP have an opportunity to try and force it through with no prior warning, I have no doubts that they'll try.
 
2013-05-02 09:34:49 AM  
 
2013-05-02 09:39:32 AM  
A Quinnipiac University poll this week shows Schwartz and Sestak each holding huge leads against Corbett, who is considered among the most vulnerable governors in the country. According to the latest survey, Schwartz would top Corbett 47-34 percent and Sestak would defeat him 48-34 percent. State Treasurer Rob McCord, who has also been critical of the Electoral College proposal, led 44-35 in the same poll.

Oh I hope this holds up. I couldn't believe that douche got elected in the first place.
 
2013-05-02 09:39:33 AM  
For God's sake, can we please just abolish the electoral college already, and go with popular vote?  Is there any real benefit to allowing the states to have a patchwork of politically motivated rules governing how electoral votes are divvied up?

Isn't everyone sick of hearing about the "battleground states" for months and months on end every election season?  Aren't the people in "battleground states" sick and tired of being pummeled with ridiculous campaign ads?

Seriously.  Nobody can objectively think that the system we have now is a good one.  Ohio shouldn't be the crown jewel of every presidential election.  And every average American hates political ads, which are chock full of  misinformation.  Lets bring some sanity to our elections already.
 
2013-05-02 09:40:50 AM  
Proportional electoral vote distribution wouldn't necessarily be a problem if every single state did it. It would be a poor man's version of the national popular vote at that point. But with only one state (or a few) doing it and every other state staying winner-take-all, it smacks of partisanship.

Electoral vote distribution by congressional district is a moronic, partisan idea that will only further entrench gerrymandering. It would be a moronic idea even if every single state switched to that method.
 
2013-05-02 09:42:10 AM  

Chummer45: For God's sake, can we please just abolish the electoral college already, and go with popular vote?  Is there any real benefit to allowing the states to have a patchwork of politically motivated rules governing how electoral votes are divvied up?

Isn't everyone sick of hearing about the "battleground states" for months and months on end every election season?  Aren't the people in "battleground states" sick and tired of being pummeled with ridiculous campaign ads?

Seriously.  Nobody can objectively think that the system we have now is a good one.  Ohio shouldn't be the crown jewel of every presidential election.  And every average American hates political ads, which are chock full of  misinformation.  Lets bring some sanity to our elections already.


Considering the changing demographics in this country, the Republicans will fight such a thing to the death.
 
2013-05-02 09:42:14 AM  

Chummer45: Isn't everyone sick of hearing about the "battleground states" for months and months on end every election season? Aren't the people in "battleground states" sick and tired of being pummeled with ridiculous campaign ads?


I live in a state that is not a battle ground.  I charish having ads pulled months before the election.
 
2013-05-02 09:42:19 AM  

Serious Black: Proportional electoral vote distribution wouldn't necessarily be a problem if every single state did it. It would be a poor man's version of the national popular vote at that point. But with only one state (or a few) doing it and every other state staying winner-take-all, it smacks of partisanship.


Electoral vote distribution by district is a problem when district populations are substantially unequal.
 
2013-05-02 09:43:08 AM  

Chummer45: For God's sake, can we please just abolish the electoral college already, and go with popular vote?   Is there any real benefit to allowing the states to have a patchwork of politically motivated rules governing how electoral votes are divvied up?


Sure. It allows the bourgeoise to conduct the real battles behind the scenes with us peons in the proletariat completely ignorant of what they're actually doing to screw us over.
 
2013-05-02 09:43:44 AM  

Chummer45: Is there any real benefit to allowing the states to have a patchwork of politically motivated rules governing how electoral votes are divvied up?


If by benefit you mean give more weight to morons, then yes there is a benefit.
 
2013-05-02 09:46:17 AM  

Chummer45: Aren't the people in "battleground states" sick and tired of being pummeled with ridiculous campaign ads?


My god, yes.  This last year was especially annoying here, since we had just got done with several months of that shiat from the recalls.  Couldn't go anywhere without seeing/hearing that shiat.  Riding to work?  Billboards everywhere.  Yard signs everywhere.  Want to turn on the radio?  Have fun.  Want to go to the sports bar with buddies and watch a game?  Commercials just trying to turn a farking game and beers into a nasty argument.  Want to eat some dinner at home in peace?  Doorbell rings!  Goddamn exhausting.
 
2013-05-02 09:48:01 AM  

Dimensio: Serious Black: Proportional electoral vote distribution wouldn't necessarily be a problem if every single state did it. It would be a poor man's version of the national popular vote at that point. But with only one state (or a few) doing it and every other state staying winner-take-all, it smacks of partisanship.

Electoral vote distribution by district is a problem when district populations are substantially unequal.


The electoral vote distribution is already substantially unequal because of how we allocate votes to states; the last calculation I looked at said somebody could theoretically become president by garnering about 22% of the national popular vote.
 
2013-05-02 09:49:22 AM  
And don't forget that this was the first Presidential election since "Citizens United" (vomit) came into law, so the amount of advertising dollars skyrocketed.  Also, the people funding these ads could hide behind the curtain and pay people to just make up complete farking lies, which made it even more fun to deal with that shiat.

"Obama wants to eat your baby and rape your grandmother!  Paid for by Americans for truth and level-headed political discourse."
 
2013-05-02 09:49:59 AM  
"Sociopath frauds, please raise your hands now."
talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2013-05-02 09:50:50 AM  
When you can't win on ideas, rig the election.
 
2013-05-02 09:52:17 AM  

Serious Black: It allows the bourgeoise to conduct the real battles behind the scenes with us peons in the proletariat completely ignorant of what they're actually doing to screw us over.



Is that you Tom?

;)
 
2013-05-02 09:57:14 AM  
i39.tinypic.com

these assholes don't like to play fair, because when they play fair, they lose.
 
2013-05-02 09:59:35 AM  
I have to admit they have a point.  Anyone who would elect Santorum to the senate has no business casting a vote for president.  Maybe they should go all the way and declare that nobody from the state of Pennsylvania should be allowed to cast a vote for national office.  Take away the congressmen and senators as well.

And pitch it to voters exactly that way.  Remember, this is the party who got all butthurt that the people whose votes they were trying to suppress didn't vote for them.
 
2013-05-02 10:03:46 AM  
I'm not sure why Republicans really think this would be a good idea.  At best, it gives them one election.
 
2013-05-02 10:07:34 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: I have to admit they have a point.  Anyone who would elect Santorum to the senate has no business casting a vote for president.  Maybe they should go all the way and declare that nobody from the state of Pennsylvania should be allowed to cast a vote for national office.  Take away the congressmen and senators as well.

And pitch it to voters exactly that way.  Remember, this is the party who got all butthurt that the people whose votes they were trying to suppress didn't vote for them.


I live in PA, and between Santorum and Corbett, I'm inclined to agree with you.
 
2013-05-02 10:08:53 AM  

FlashHarry: [i39.tinypic.com image 652x360]

these assholes don't like to play fair, because when they play fair, they lose.


Same in Ohio. The turds of the Ohio GOP basically just scaled back the time to get signatures on a referendum after they got their sorry asses handed to them over SB 5. Now they are introducing bullshiat Right to Work laws.

Nobody in the state wants this shiat, unless you're an ignorant tea bagger farkwit. But they just keep changing to rules so they can win.
 
2013-05-02 10:16:15 AM  

Serious Black: Dimensio: Serious Black: Proportional electoral vote distribution wouldn't necessarily be a problem if every single state did it. It would be a poor man's version of the national popular vote at that point. But with only one state (or a few) doing it and every other state staying winner-take-all, it smacks of partisanship.

Electoral vote distribution by district is a problem when district populations are substantially unequal.

The electoral vote distribution is already substantially unequal because of how we allocate votes to states; the last calculation I looked at said somebody could theoretically become president by garnering about 22% of the national popular vote.


Approves.

/Would have been elected even had his three opponents' votes been combined.
 
2013-05-02 10:16:30 AM  
I don't know. Between the long term employment and the fracking that's fattening pockets outside of the state, the GOP might find it more resourceful to leave PA for dead and blame it on Philly.
 
2013-05-02 10:16:52 AM  

eiger: Serious Black: Dimensio: Serious Black: Proportional electoral vote distribution wouldn't necessarily be a problem if every single state did it. It would be a poor man's version of the national popular vote at that point. But with only one state (or a few) doing it and every other state staying winner-take-all, it smacks of partisanship.

Electoral vote distribution by district is a problem when district populations are substantially unequal.

The electoral vote distribution is already substantially unequal because of how we allocate votes to states; the last calculation I looked at said somebody could theoretically become president by garnering about 22% of the national popular vote.

Approves.

/Would have been elected even had his three opponents' votes been combined.


Supposed to be an image of Lincoln. I suck.
 
2013-05-02 10:19:05 AM  
Good, I have faith that there are enough conservatives out there that value democracy over "wining" and will oust these farkwads in the current GOP.
 
2013-05-02 10:24:08 AM  
a lot of these crazy plots were banking on Romney being president and now that's not, they have to worry about consequences.
 
2013-05-02 10:27:20 AM  

Citrate1007: Good, I have faith that there are enough conservatives out there that value democracy over "wining" and will oust these farkwads in the current GOP.


I see nothing about Republicans to warrant such a belief.
 
2013-05-02 10:46:53 AM  
Eager to see Corbett gone.
 
2013-05-02 10:57:11 AM  

Citrate1007: Good, I have faith that there are enough conservatives out there that value democracy over "wining" and will oust these farkwads in the current GOP.


That's a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
 
2013-05-02 11:08:07 AM  
Republicans and other right wing themed troll accounts:
Please explain to me why, if this is such a fair and sensible proposal, why Republicans are only pushing for this in swing states that went against them?

Why aren't they pushing for these laws in, say, Texas?
 
2013-05-02 11:38:48 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Republicans and other right wing themed troll accounts:
Please explain to me why, if this is such a fair and sensible proposal, why Republicans are only pushing for this in swing states that went against them?

Why aren't they pushing for these laws in, say, Texas?


Because soshulizms.
 
2013-05-02 11:52:53 AM  
Fuggin Bizzy: Why do TPM articles migrate to the right on mobile?

Yeah, I noticed that, too.  Nice to see it isn't just me & my phone.  We need more data points - does it happen on both iOS and Android?  (I'm Android 2.3.5 - Fark you, Motorola, for cancelling my upgrade to 4.0.)  What about WinPhone?

As for the article, remember Swallow's Third Law: "There is *Nothing* the Republican Party fears more than an Honest Count."
 
2013-05-02 12:18:44 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: We need more data points - does it happen on both iOS and Android?  (I'm Android 2.3.5...


Ha. I'm also on Android 2.3.5 (Droid X2). Interesting...thinking I might upgrade my device this summer. That'll be two years.

Thanks for the response! I'm also glad it's not just me. *snif*
 
2013-05-02 12:28:25 PM  

FuturePastNow: Citrate1007: Good, I have faith that there are enough conservatives out there that value democracy over "wining" and will oust these farkwads in the current GOP.

I see nothing about Republicans to warrant such a belief.


Points to 2012 election results....They may not ever vote for a democrat, but not showing up to the poll is just as good.
 
2013-05-02 12:47:54 PM  
I still think it's weird that standards and procedures federal elections can vary so much by State and aren't harmonized, y'know, federally.

But that's probably just me and my dumb ideas.
 
2013-05-02 01:12:21 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-05-02 01:21:34 PM  

trotsky: FlashHarry: [i39.tinypic.com image 652x360]

these assholes don't like to play fair, because when they play fair, they lose.

Same in Ohio. The turds of the Ohio GOP basically just scaled back the time to get signatures on a referendum after they got their sorry asses handed to them over SB 5. Now they are introducing bullshiat Right to Work laws.

http://news.cincinnati.com/viewart/20130501/NEWS/305010211/GOP-leade r- Ohio-right-work-bills-lack-support

Right to work's been killed in Ohio, at least for now.

And I kind of enjoy being a white male Democrat living in Ohio. I was VERY popular last year.
 
2013-05-02 01:29:23 PM  

Chummer45: For God's sake, can we please just abolish the electoral college already, and go with popular vote?  Is there any real benefit to allowing the states to have a patchwork of politically motivated rules governing how electoral votes are divvied up?

Isn't everyone sick of hearing about the "battleground states" for months and months on end every election season?  Aren't the people in "battleground states" sick and tired of being pummeled with ridiculous campaign ads?

Seriously.  Nobody can objectively think that the system we have now is a good one.  Ohio shouldn't be the crown jewel of every presidential election.  And every average American hates political ads, which are chock full of  misinformation.  Lets bring some sanity to our elections already.


To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), by state laws.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: AZ - 67%, CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
 
2013-05-02 01:30:51 PM  

THX 1138: I still think it's weird that standards and procedures federal elections can vary so much by State and aren't harmonized, y'know, federally.

But that's probably just me and my dumb ideas.


The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways.
 
2013-05-02 01:32:41 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Republicans and other right wing themed troll accounts:
Please explain to me why, if this is such a fair and sensible proposal, why Republicans are only pushing for this in swing states that went against them?

Why aren't they pushing for these laws in, say, Texas?


Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections.
 
2013-05-02 01:34:38 PM  

Serious Black: Proportional electoral vote distribution wouldn't necessarily be a problem if every single state did it. It would be a poor man's version of the national popular vote at that point. But with only one state (or a few) doing it and every other state staying winner-take-all, it smacks of partisanship.

Electoral vote distribution by congressional district is a moronic, partisan idea that will only further entrench gerrymandering. It would be a moronic idea even if every single state switched to that method.


An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .

Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state's interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."

http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-e l ectoral-college-votes
 
2013-05-02 01:36:04 PM  
A survey of Pennsylvania voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.

By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

NationalPopularVote
 
2013-05-02 01:59:36 PM  

monoski: Eager to see Corbett gone.


img.makeupalley.com
 
2013-05-02 02:16:25 PM  

oldgulph: The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways.


Yeah.  I realize that's the reason why it is the way it is, I just find it perplexing that elections on a federal level were set up that way in the first place.  One would have thought that a set of harmonized rules and regulations would have been a logical structure from the point of conception.  It certainly keeps things interesting, I'll say that.
 
2013-05-02 03:47:46 PM  
"People who vote differently than me should not be able to vote. If their side wins, its because they lied/cheated/bought votes/etc/etc." - Every Partisan Political Wonk.
 
2013-05-02 04:11:51 PM  
I just want to say, I called it back in October the Republicans' response to this election will be "rig the electoral college".

Also, no shiat the Republicans want to tie electoral votes to Congressional districts. We just had an election in which the Republicans held a House majority despite losing the popular vote in House elections by seven points.
 
2013-05-02 05:59:42 PM  

monoski: Eager to see Corbett gone.


I just want to see alcohol sale privatization passed first.

I don't understand why the PA Dems  hateprivatization so much, other than the obvious members in the pocket of the union.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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