I am, and have been an advocate of this for a while now. I believe it is a more balanced and fair way to elect the president. Thoughts? The Link
Huffington Post readers are really not bright based on their comments. For all the plan's flaws, comparing the GOP to Russia is really stupid. You could probably argue that the plan is more representative of the actual popular vote, but it would also leave way too much variation in voting, IMO, since it would essentially put the presidential election at the mercy of redistricting. You thought redistricting was political before! Unfortunately, the Dems are always going to have an advantage in the electoral college by virtue of metro areas skewing liberal, but that's on the GOP to address through education and recruiting of new members.
States have the right to do this, but it's a terrible idea. Do we really want each state to allocate its votes based on hyperpartisan redistricting maps?
So there's nothing to force congressional districts to be redrawn (other than the census every 10 years), hence, the GOP will win every election from here on out. Sounds fair. Even the total votes for Congressmen favored the Democrats, but the average person wouldn't know that based on the 233-200-2 distribution.
Gerrymandering has been, and most likely will always be a problem. I would like to know why you think it is such a "terrible" idea Deez. People in states that are dominated by one or two large cities feel like their votes are meaningless. In my opinion candidates would now have to consider the whole country in play, not just the Ohio's, Florida's, etc.
All I know is I don't want a bunch of bumpkin votes run things. Gerrymandering is bad no matter who does it. Texas and its ridiculous districts is a prime example
Yeah I'm with Hornsforever... we shouldn't let those country people vote. Let's just make it to where you have to live in a major metropolitan area in order to have a voice in national politics. Everyone else is stupid anyway...
"I would like to know why you think it is such a "terrible" idea Deez." Because the people who have drawn the congressional districts are the people who lead the executive and legislative branches of each state. The chances of these districts going through radical changes is slim at this point, because the census doesn't happen very often and wouldn't drastically alter the boundaries. I guess you could have state-by-state "cultural revolutions" where the leading party in charge changes, but not to the tune that we saw southern democrats turn into republicans in the 70s-80s. I mean... consider the HuffPo original article. Romney wins by 10 electoral votes, despite losing the popular vote by 4.9 million people? Hell, Gore only won by 450K votes, so at least that electoral college victory for Bush seemed legit. The elections would be squarely in the hands of the dudes who drew every congressional district, and in 60 percent of the states right now, that's the GOP. The 2012 House of Reps. elections shows how messed up the congressional districts are. There's no way the GOP should have 16.5 percent more seats when you look at the voter breakdowns in this nation. The "single urban area" theory, for all of its drawbacks espoused by the GOP, is just a fallacy to show that people who live in urban areas don't represent the state's best interests. Despite the obvious fact that those urbanites do, in fact, live in the state. If anything, I think smaller states like Wyoming and Vermont shouldn't be getting 4-7x as much "bang for the vote" when they hit the polls as I do in Texas. Regardless of whether they go red or blue. I'd be fascinated to see a county-version of the electoral college, but it'd be too tough to figure out how to divvy up the electoral votes.
So you would have redistricting every 10 years. Two presidential election cycles. It happens anyway. So what if BO won by 5 million votes. How many of those were cast in large urban areas that carried the state because they were in areas that continue to receive "benefits" from the federal government? Large states dominate the electoral college now, so candidates don't really have to mess with smaller states. This would level the playing field. I'm not sure how I would want the two senate electoral votes cast, popular vote or virtue of winning greatest number of congressional districts. I just believe this is a more fair way of everyone having a vote that truly counts. It might make more people vote if they believe that they can make a difference. I doubt people in Cali who vote Pub or Independent really believe that their vote is valuable. The die is cast before they even go to the polls, so why go. The courts can always change redistricting, it did in Texas.
I am a simple-minded person. What is special about Congressional Districts? Why not cities, counties, senatorial districts, etc.? Seems like total votes in a state ought to be the way to count that states votes, no? Hook'em!!!
"So what if BO won by 5 million votes." Name another modern election that should have swung by 4 percent in order to make the other guy the winner. "How many of those were cast in large urban areas that carried the state because they were in areas that continue to receive "benefits" from the federal government?" So you're saying their votes shouldn't have counted because of what... welfare? Entitlements? The want to keep a progressive tax rate? What makes urban areas so "out-of-touch" with the type of president the country needs? "Large states dominate the electoral college now, so candidates don't really have to mess with smaller states." Small states have always been split between the two parties, going back to the 1988 election after the north/south ideological shift was completed. The GOP will always get WY, AK, the Dakotas, etc. The Dems will always get HI, VT, DE, etc. This wouldn't change by turning it in to a congressional district thing. "This would level the playing field." It would level the playing field for the current regimes that drew the congressional districts. How "level" is that playing field now? There were a million more votes cast for Democrat congressmen, yet the GOP held 33 more seats in the HoR. There would be no conceivable way for Democrats to win the presidency. But, that's probably ok with most who obviously support such a system.
one man, one vote we either live in a democracy or we don't gerrymandering needs to be illegal you can, by computer, draw congressional districts in a completely non-partisan way
I think having competitive Congressional districts would be good for the country. I know some on this board seem to think I believe the Democratic Party is the cat's pajamas. But honestly, I'm a democrat with the little d. I trust people to vote their interests and competitive districts would make politicians more, not less, accountable to voters. Leaving a city the size of Austin with no Congressional representation is just an example of hyperpartisanship that rules in redistricting. We certainly don't want to change the system to add more incentives for Gerrymandering.
Well said Prodigal. I couldn't agree more. I do think the idea needs to be explored. Paso has a good thought in addressing congressional districts. Will they ever be drawn by non partisan groups, probably not. Dems do not like this idea, for obvious reasons. As several people corrected the previous poster, this is a republic, and not a democracy where majority rules.
"Horn11 who thinks anyone who doesn't live down town is a moron" If anything, I think I gave a pretty bleak representation of what the urban voters wanted. But the arguments against them have been stating that they "hijack" the elections, when quite frankly, people who live in cities are voters in that state. End of story. If they're moronic for wanting big government in their lives, so be it. Their votes still count. And I never advocated getting rid of the EC. I stated that turning it into a "Congressional Districts take all" format is far inferior to the current format. It takes a moron to state why it's not unfair for the process. Be it urban, country, whatever. Congressional districts are drawn by flawed humans with political motives in the present. The state lines were drawn by flawed humans with political motives from a hundred-plus years ago. It's easier to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't.
To go back forty years might be surprising. I don't know the answer to that question. We would have to look at congressional district voting for all of those years to find that answer. We might be surprised at the results, we might not. We amend the Constitution when necessary, not when it's convenient, although some might suggest that. I'm not looking to give anyone a new advantage, but I do think the current system needs a closer look. We can't keep the idiots from voting, but we might educate more people on what the candidates truly stand for if they have to criss cross the country, because they don't have to right now. Ignorance was on full display this last election on both sides of the aisle.
_________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe it is a more balanced and fair way to elect the president. Thoughts? ______________________________________________________________________________________ If by this you mean the way I would expect Fox News contributiors to want it, you have nailed the dead-on bullseye.
If everyone's honest, it all boils down to whether you won or lost. We Dems like getting Omaha away from NEB electoral votes but don't want to give away Penn votes that we had all to ourselves. But the fact remains...who gives a **** about Nebraska, or Maine? As long as the rest of the country is consistent in how the Presidential election is run! The 'Pubs need to concentrate on what their message is...not trying to gerrymander the vote count. How about fair elections so people don't have to wait in 6-8 hour lines to vote? Show us you are willing to do that...then we will talk about your gerrymandering schemes! Hook'em!!!
FNL, I believe in amending the Constitution when the system is truly the problem, but is the system really the problem here? What's driving the current dynamic of a handful of swing states driving the election is the polarized electorate. Well, that's not a problem with the system. That's a problem with the public and with the parties and candidates. For me, that's not enough reason to amend the Constitution. Furthermore, I view redistricting as a big problem as well, and I'd rather not invite that problem into presidential politics. You may disagree, but I just don't think that's wise. I didn't vote for Obama. In fact, I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. However, we don't amend the Constitution to manipulate who wins or loses.
