Wow, that's just shameless.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/13/pennsylvania_ponders_bold_democrat_screwing_electoral_plan.html
Quote
Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan
By David Weigel
| Posted Tuesday, Sep. 13, 2011, at 4:06 PM EDT
Laura Olson reports on the happenings in Harrisburg, where Republicans now control all of the branches of government:
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.
In other reports, Pileggi sounds awfully sanguine about the effect this would have on PA as a swing state. Why even bring that up? Pennsylvania is typically a closely-divided state, and while it's gone Democratic in every election since 1992, it's been heavily campaigned-in every year.
So, let's pretend this is a totally political neutral decision. If the next Republican candidate breaks the streak and wins the state, it would be horrible for him -- he'd shed electoral votes. But if the president wins, he's down at least nine, possibly ten electoral votes, because congressional districting is slanted towards the GOP.
Here's what I mean. In 2008, Barack Obama won the state by 10 points (overcoming a last-minute hoax scare wherein a Republican volunteer faked a mugging and claimed a black man carved a B on her face, for Barack). But the congressional map had been gerrymandered by Republicans in 2001, and John McCain ended up winning 10 of 19 congressional districts. If the Pileggi plan had been in place, Obama's rout would have given him a slim 11-10 electoral vote victory. If Republicans do a smarter gerrymander this time, they could craft an 11-7 map, or even a 12-6 map (they'll have 18 to work with, thanks to the Census taking one seat away). Let's say Obama carries Pennsylvania narrowly, but loses 11 congressional districts. In that scenario, the winner of the Pennsylvania popular vote takes nine EVs; the loser takes 11 EVs. How's that reform look to you?
This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.
Precisely.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.
Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state? I don't see the problem with that.
Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.
Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state? I don't see the problem with that.
Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.
I like that electoral vote system better, seems more equitable. So that voters in a State who don't get the majority still have their votes count.
Massachusetts is gerrymandering now. Going to lose one or two districts, due to population loss. About ten years ago our House Speakers got convicted of some crimes over it, misdemeanors but lost his law license. Be interesting to see how it goes now; so brazenly political. Hehe..
Quote(overcoming a last-minute hoax scare wherein a Republican volunteer faked a mugging and claimed a black man carved a B on her face, for Barack).
I don't remember the impact but was Barack really looking at failing in Penn because of that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state? I don't see the problem with that.
Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.
Eh, that's great in theory, and I'd support it if every state did this, but all this is doing is destroy any belief in the notion of democracy. Pennsylvania's Republicans are worried the state will vote for Obama, so they're using control of the legislature to switch a system that's been in place for decades... actually, when did Pennsylvania not have this?
Let's suppose Obama loses again, thanks in part to this, despite getting 52% of the national vote. Why should anyone continue to have faith in American democracy after that?
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
I am shocked that you hate using words the way culture and the English language have evolved to use them, preferring to nitpick for unclear reasons while missing the point entirely.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 14, 2011, 08:52:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
I am shocked that you hate using words the way culture and the English language have evolved to use them, preferring to nitpick for unclear reasons while missing the point entirely.
Look I acknowledge that the meaning of the word has changed, but facts are facts. The Founding Fathers weren't a fan and drew up the constitution to make the nation a Republic. That's how it works. I agree that the way the President is elected should change, and support NPV to that ends. Whining that the nation isn't a democracy doesn't change anything and just tells us something we already know.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I always found retarded that you guys didn't already have that.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 14, 2011, 09:44:46 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I always found retarded that you guys didn't already have that.
I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?
These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?
Hell, the entire travelling around and visiting places as part of the effort to garner votes is pretty silly anyway. Our entire process is strucutured around an eleectoral system that is not founded on anything that has current relevancy, really. Iowa is stupidly important, along with Massachusetts. Why? Because they have early primaries.
I think Zoupa is right. The electoral system is retarded in general.
Republicans are Asshats. Berkut takes centrist position by blaming everything on system. Film at 11.
Yeah, me and Zoupa, two centrists at heart.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
That's dumb, because the two are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I get it that Republican pundits like the sound of "Republic" better than "Democracy" but you're a republic because you don't have hereditary heads of state and you're a democracy because you elect your governments. The US is a democratic republic.
Now, we only need to find a way to add a "people's" in there....
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 14, 2011, 09:44:46 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I always found retarded that you guys didn't already have that.
I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?
These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope.
Exactly. Especially when you have a Congress that actually wields power. The Presidency shouldn't have to rely on anything but total number of votes.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?
These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?
Hell, the entire travelling around and visiting places as part of the effort to garner votes is pretty silly anyway. Our entire process is strucutured around an eleectoral system that is not founded on anything that has current relevancy, really. Iowa is stupidly important, along with Massachusetts. Why? Because they have early primaries.
I think Zoupa is right. The electoral system is retarded in general.
I am beginning to think you are right. I was against the idea during the Bush administration because I felt it would look like sour grapes. Still, the 2000 election where the guy who gets less votes then the other loses is not ideal.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?
These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?
The candidates don't even actually go to small states though since almost all of them lean strongly one way.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Both wrong. We're a kleptocracy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?
These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?
The candidates don't even actually go to small states though since almost all of them lean strongly one way.
My point is that there really isn't any actual reason for them to go to any particular states, except for the electoral system, which just pushes them go to a select few states, while ignoring most of them.
So it doesn't even do what the one thing that it is supposed to be useful for - keeping smaller states relevant. Instead it just keeps a few small states much more relevant than they ought to be.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 14, 2011, 11:01:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Both wrong. We're a kleptocracy.
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I think that their plan sucks. If you want to go to direct popular election of the President, fine, but in that case just amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2011, 11:09:48 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 14, 2011, 11:01:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Both wrong. We're a kleptocracy.
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
:lol:
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:28:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I think that their plan sucks. If you want to go to direct popular election of the President, fine, but in that case just amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.
That would be the best way.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:28:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
I think that their plan sucks. If you want to go to direct popular election of the President, fine, but in that case just amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.
That would be better, but this way works. The Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to choose electors as they see fit. If they want to do it this way there's no stopping them.
If all swing states did this the electoral college results per candidate would be virtually indentical every single election wouldn't it? The same states would go Dem or Republican and the swing states would be split.
That would be nice we wouldn't even have to bother with the general election.
So in spite of Pennsylvania giving Republicans control of its legislature, Pennsylvania Republicans are so confident the state will go blue in any close election that they'd rather just remove the state's ability to influence the election. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 10:31:29 PM
I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?
These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?
The candidates don't even actually go to small states though since almost all of them lean strongly one way.
Agreed. It's not like the present system doesn't lead to states being ignored. It just leads to different states being ignored (the ones which are not battleground, which is usually 75% of them these days).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 09:39:47 AM
So in spite of Pennsylvania giving Republicans control of its legislature, Pennsylvania Republicans are so confident the state will go blue in any close election that they'd rather just remove the state's ability to influence the election. :hmm:
Local vs. federal. Just because New York City elected Rudy Giuliani doesn't mean that they suddenly became pro-life and wanted to abolish Social Security.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 10:04:04 AM
Local vs. federal. Just because New York City elected Rudy Giuliani doesn't mean that they suddenly became pro-life and wanted to abolish Social Security.
Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 10:04:04 AM
Local vs. federal. Just because New York City elected Rudy Giuliani doesn't mean that they suddenly became pro-life and wanted to abolish Social Security.
Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.
Just because Northeasterners are capable of electing Giuliani doesn't mean that they don't screw up and elect real nutcase Republicans once in a while, especially during a period of backlash. It also doesn't take a big swing for a state like Pennsylvania, which is Alabama in the middle anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.
Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state? I don't see the problem with that.
Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.
Does that really change the analysis? If Republicans got control of California and New York and awarded votes proportional to the popular vote, the effect would be that Democrats lose any close election. Assuming the dem. candidate wins 60-40, the electoral votes would go from being about 80-0 to 48-32--a change from an 80 vote edge to just 16.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:11:28 AM
Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.
:bleeding: Nobody should be like Bloomberg.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 15, 2011, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 14, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
This is why every state should be winner take all unless there is a collective move away from that system.
Aren't there a few states now that award electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state? I don't see the problem with that.
Agree that using gerrymandered districts is very gamey.
Does that really change the analysis? If Republicans got control of California and New York and awarded votes proportional to the popular vote, the effect would be that Democrats lose any close election. Assuming the dem. candidate wins 60-40, the electoral votes would go from being about 80-0 to 48-32--a change from an 80 vote edge to just 16.
Dems can do the same when they take Texas, Floria and Ohio.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 15, 2011, 11:05:58 AM
Dems can do the same when they take Texas
The day that happens will be the day the Democrats become more Republican than the Republicans. That strikes me as unlikely since no matter how right wing the Texas Dems might be they have the burden of being associated with the national party.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:11:28 AM
Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.
:bleeding: Nobody should be like Bloomberg.
Yeah, competent and effective government officials does really undermine the anti-government position of the GOP.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:11:28 AM
Yeah, but a lot of those guys should be more like Bloomburg and not be particularly enthused about giving more power to the more typical GOP types.
:bleeding: Nobody should be like Bloomberg.
I meant should as in the sense that one would expect they would and not as a moral imperative.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 15, 2011, 12:18:18 AM
That would be better, but this way works. The Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to choose electors as they see fit. If they want to do it this way there's no stopping them.
There are probably limits. If the state legislature voted that the Governor chose all the electors, or that the electors would always be the electors chosen by Party X, I suspect other constitutional provisions would come into play.
Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2011, 12:09:03 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 15, 2011, 12:18:18 AM
That would be better, but this way works. The Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to choose electors as they see fit. If they want to do it this way there's no stopping them.
There are probably limits. If the state legislature voted that the Governor chose all the electors, or that the electors would always be the electors chosen by Party X, I suspect other constitutional provisions would come into play.
Constitutionally, there aren't, except that federal officeholders can't be Electors. From Article Two: "Each State shall appoint,
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Now, in practice, if a state passed a law such as you suggest, the uproar would be so bad that the federal courts would likely find a pretext to declare the law unconstitutional, but there's really nothing there.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 02:37:16 PM
Constitutionally, there aren't, except that federal officeholders can't be Electors.
If you assume that the remainder of the Constitution is irrelevant to the state action, sure. I don't think you could realistically say that a state could mandate that all electors be white male property-holders over the age of 40, though...
Rutherford B Hayes 2012
Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 02:37:16 PM
Constitutionally, there aren't, except that federal officeholders can't be Electors.
If you assume that the remainder of the Constitution is irrelevant to the state action, sure. I don't think you could realistically say that a state could mandate that all electors be white male property-holders over the age of 40, though...
No, then you'd probably run into a problem under the "equal protection of the laws" clause. But it the state legislature simply directed the governor to appoint the electors, there's no provision of the Constitution that's clearly being violated.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 15, 2011, 10:31:02 AM
Does that really change the analysis? If Republicans got control of California and New York and awarded votes proportional to the popular vote, the effect would be that Democrats lose any close election. Assuming the dem. candidate wins 60-40, the electoral votes would go from being about 80-0 to 48-32--a change from an 80 vote edge to just 16.
I suppose you're right Fredo. If you posit a safe presidential state on the one hand and a stunning minority party victory in the state legislature on the other you'd have a hell of a damn mess. :lol:
Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously wrong.
Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 10:02:19 PM
Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.
Or, more likely, the party that would have to do away with gerrymandering is the same party that is in charge of gerrymandering.
The real question is why we even have states. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:56:29 PM
Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously wrong.
Because both parties would have to agree to set up such a body, and neither party wants to (except in a very few boring states).
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 15, 2011, 11:19:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:56:29 PM
Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously wrong.
Because both parties would have to agree to set up such a body, and neither party wants to (except in a very few boring states).
Surely doing away with some of the dirtyness and corruption in politics should be a big vote winner?
Lots of places in the US do have that. Penn is controlled by Teamsters though, and it easier for them to control things the way it is.
A politically neutral electoral body would only remove the gerrymandering by one iteration. You'd just end up with the parties altering the framework on how to divide seats in such a way as to benefit the party in power.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 10:02:19 PM
Probably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.
But it's a very useful fiction.
Sure, everyone has a political background in such a thing. But they have at the very least pay lip service to being politically neutral, and remove the most obvious political influence from the process.
I can tell you we have nothing close to the level of gerrymandering that goes on in the US up here.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:53:53 PMI can tell you we have nothing close to the level of gerrymandering that goes on in the US up here.
Same. The government's cutting the number of MPs and the Boundary Commission's just released its draft proposals for England. Because it's England it inevitably favours the Tories but three Tory cabinet ministers (including the Chancellor of the Exchequer), a Lib Dem minister and Nick Clegg are all set to lose their seats. Obviously their parties'll make sure they can find a new safe seat (I don't know how possible this is for Clegg because I think all of Sheffield's seats are looking marginal at best for a Lib Dem).
But I don't think there's been any real worries about gerrymandering in years. The closest I can think of was maybe Westminster Council in the 80s?
QuoteProbably because we're smart enough to realize that a politically neutral body is a fiction.
I think you can. But I also don't think that's an excuse to make something, effectively, corrupt. I think a number of states have established a bipartisan system of doing this with some way of avoiding gerrymandering. Can't remember the procedure, but I think California was the latest.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 10:52:12 PM
The real question is why we even have states. <_<
To demarcate the evolved from the heathen masses. :contract:
Wisconsin is now contemplating the same thing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/10/12/inevitable_wisconsin_republicans_mull_pennsylvania_style_elector.html
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 10:52:12 PM
The real question is why we even have states. <_<
To demarcate the evolved from the heathen masses. :contract:
Everything evolves. What are you, some kind of creationist weirdo?
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2011, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 10:52:12 PM
The real question is why we even have states. <_<
To demarcate the evolved from the heathen masses. :contract:
Don't you come from San Fran? That's like ground zero of filthy heathen masses.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 11:30:09 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 15, 2011, 11:19:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:56:29 PM
Why doesn`t America have a proper, functional, politically neutral body for drawing up district lines?
Gerrymandering seems such a big part of things over there and it is so obviously wrong.
Because both parties would have to agree to set up such a body, and neither party wants to (except in a very few boring states).
Surely doing away with some of the dirtyness and corruption in politics should be a big vote winner?
The dirtiest secret in politics is that most voters don't really want clean government.