The new 3/5ths of person

[Roosveltrepub]

GOP voting bills aimed at party hegemony in Va - Houston Chronicle one person one vote???? If you can't get a majority after you make it hard for those who dont vote for you to vote, just make their votes 3/5ths of your base's vote.............

[zraver]

GOP voting bills aimed at party hegemony in Va - Houston Chronicle one person one vote???? If you can't get a majority after you make it hard for those who dont vote for you to vote, just make their votes 3/5ths of your base's vote.............

Gerrymandering is hardly news both sides do it. If you want to talk about 3/5ths of a vote take a look at Obama's winner takes all approach to agenda. He has not offered up a bit of compromise or respect for the tens of millions of citizens who disagree with him politically or religiously. it is his way or no way.

[dalem]

So Rosie, I just want to get this straight: using the term "shucking and jiving" about a half-Kenyan is racist, but using the term
"3/5ths of a person" about anybody else is not? Is that how your brain works?

-dale

[zraver]

Dale, you should know better, anyone to the right of the lefties, or left of the righties is only 3/5ths of a person...

[dalem]

Dale, you should know better, anyone to the right of the lefties, or left of the righties is only 3/5ths of a person...

I just wonder how a person like Rosie thinks, inside his head-parts.

-dale

[zraver]

I just wonder how a person like Rosie thinks, inside his head-parts.

-dale

With too much emotion and too little math.

Conservatives use too much tradition and not enough liberty. When the system works it balances out but the system is broken becuase the 4th estate abandoned its role and politicians started using the nations wealth to buy votes..

[dalem]

With too much emotion and too little math.

Conservatives use too much tradition and not enough liberty. When the system works it balances out but the system is broken becuase the 4th estate abandoned its role and politicians started using the nations wealth to buy votes..

But whose fault is that but the People's?

-dale

[zraver]

But whose fault is that but the People's?

-dale

100% agree in part. The only caveat is those in power can and do manipulate the system and thus the perception of reality to those only trained to be workers and consumers.

[Roosveltrepub]

Zraver it isnt the gerrymandering. It is the idea to award electors by congressional district. It is supported by the head of the republican party The three states republicans proposed it in if it had been passed last yr would of resulted in Romney winning the Presidency because despite majorities in Ohio, VA and MI Obama would of recieved far less than half of the electors. In VA they ustified the proposal by sayng the urban north has to much sway. It would of meant Romney despote losing the popular vote in VA got 9 electors to Obamas 4 or 5. The 3/5ths reference was purposeful because by removing the popular vote statewide fromthe equation it makes urban voters..........3/5ths of exurban voters. It stops being one man one vote of equal weight and makes those who dont vote republican by huge percentages have n huge numbers( brown people) inferior voters and awards states to the loser because of the increased power of the white suburban votes. No big shock in one respnds to the actual point and Dale...........it is making black votes 3/5ths of a vote because they are more highly concentrated in cities. We would offiically become the USSR where elections were a joke and the system was rigged.............. Thankfully a few republicans are saying no fing way cheating isnt the answer to losing. Please explain to me how a party chairman backs that plan and keeps his job in a party that has made fair electns and oneman one vote t's principle or maybe it realy wasnt abut IDs and it really was abut suppression for those in the know? Great idea right..no one woud be in the streets if the candidate that lost by 4 percentage votes won.

[bigross86]

And the current system is any better? States that have less electoral college votes are also skipped over. Their votes are worth less. No one cares about the state with 3 or 4 electoral college votes, they care about the states with 15-20 electoral college votes.

So according to your logic, smaller states area apparently worth 3/5ths of a normal state

[astralis]

frankly i think it's time to get rid of the electoral college, which i think presents a greater threat to the integrity of the republic than it does actually....saving it.

trying to "proportionalize" a winner-takes-all system is foolishness, primarily meant to suppress the urban vote. it's so obvious that even republicans are by and large backing off on this, first over electoral college worries and second over the image.

[bigross86]

If you ask me, the electoral college is an uneeded extra step in the entire process. They already count the popular vote anyway, so why not base the winner of the elections on the popular vote? It will mean that the indivudal's vote is now worth more, which as far as I'm concerned, makes the most sense. I fill out my absentee ballot in the State of NY, knowing that I'll most likely vote Republican and that it won't matter at all. I'll bet gunnut feels the same way in California. Remove the electoral college and now my vote and his vote is worth the exact same as your vote, regardless of where we live or if the state tends to be red or blue.

[zraver]

Zraver it isnt the gerrymandering. It is the idea to award electors by congressional district. It is supported by the head of the republican party The three states republicans proposed it in if it had been passed last yr would of resulted in Romney winning the Presidency because despite majorities in Ohio, VA and MI Obama would of recieved far less than half of the electors. In VA they ustified the proposal by sayng the urban north has to much sway. It would of meant Romney despote losing the popular vote in VA got 9 electors to Obamas 4 or 5. The 3/5ths reference was purposeful because by removing the popular vote statewide fromthe equation it makes urban voters..........3/5ths of exurban voters. It stops being one man one vote of equal weight and makes those who dont vote republican by huge percentages have n huge numbers( brown people) inferior voters and awards states to the loser because of the increased power of the white suburban votes. No big shock in one respnds to the actual point and Dale...........it is making black votes 3/5ths of a vote because they are more highly concentrated in cities. We would offiically become the USSR where elections were a joke and the system was rigged.............. Thankfully a few republicans are saying no fing way cheating isnt the answer to losing. Please explain to me how a party chairman backs that plan and keeps his job in a party that has made fair electns and oneman one vote t's principle or maybe it realy wasnt abut IDs and it really was abut suppression for those in the know? Great idea right..no one woud be in the streets if the candidate that lost by 4 percentage votes won.

Our winner takes all electoral system has major problems. It needs reformed. Look at Washington State or Northern California, the Seattle metro area and Northern California are much more liberal than the rest of the state but have a larger population. As a result 2 in 5 or so people in these states effectively have no voice in national politics. This suppresses voter turnout because the current winner takes all system that permits urban dominance also affects senatorial races and congressional districts. Is that fair? The electoral college system was designed to prevent majority rule so that less densely populated states would still have a voice. Now however urban centers virtually ignore fly over country. Lets apportion electoral college votes, if not by congressional district then by some other formula that lessens the weight of urban centers so we can get back to the spirit of the system.

Astralis, scrapping the electoral system would gut middle America of any voice in presidential politics.

[astralis]

BR,

If you ask me, the electoral college is an uneeded extra step in the entire process. They already count the popular vote anyway, so why not base the winner of the elections on the popular vote? It will mean that the indivudal's vote is now worth more, which as far as I'm concerned, makes the most sense. I fill out my absentee ballot in the State of NY, knowing that I'll most likely vote Republican and that it won't matter at all. I'll bet gunnut feels the same way in California. Remove the electoral college and now my vote and his vote is worth the exact same as your vote, regardless of where we live or if the state tends to be red or blue.

precisely. the original idea of the electoral college was meant precisely as an anti-democratic ditch-- in case there was a persuasive tyrant around, surely the electoral voters would recognize this and go againt their own populace.

of course the founding fathers never realized how "factions" would play such a role in politics.

z,

Astralis, scrapping the electoral system would gut middle America of any voice in presidential politics.

no, it wouldn't; it would make their voice exactly proportional to their numbers. it disgusts me to see politicians fall over themselves to kowtow to an iowa of 3.6 million and not give a good goddamn to NY or LA, which not only outnumbers iowa but creates considerably more economic activity. this doesn't even get into the even more ridiculous spectacle of states trying to move their primaries earlier and earlier, for the media impact.

as it is, millions of urban voters have less impact than tens of thousands of rural ones.

[zraver]

as it is, millions of urban voters have less impact than tens of thousands of rural ones.

Agree to disagree. Major urban centers drive American politics far outside the numbers of people who actually live there becuase of the impact on presidential and senatorial elections.