Any changes to the operation of the EC should not be done in the spur of the moment. If the speaker really wants this to happen, write the legislation such that it has to be approved and re-approved every 4 years over a 20 year period. If it gets approved in the 5 sessions, then it becomes law.

(12-20-2016 03:36 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Any changes to the operation of the EC should not be done in the spur of the moment. If the speaker really wants this to happen, write the legislation such that it has to be approved and re-approved every 4 years over a 20 year period. If it gets approved in the 5 sessions, then it becomes law.

I would prefer if it's something the people vote on once a decade or so...

(12-20-2016 03:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:36 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Any changes to the operation of the EC should not be done in the spur of the moment. If the speaker really wants this to happen, write the legislation such that it has to be approved and re-approved every 4 years over a 20 year period. If it gets approved in the 5 sessions, then it becomes law.

I would prefer if it's something the people vote on once a decade or so...

I'm good with that as well.

(12-20-2016 10:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its a great idea for MN because it ensures that both parties will show up there. As it was, you never saw Clinton in MN, because she took it for granted. In most cycles you wouldnt see a republican there either. By doing this, MN becomes a must-campaign state.

Not really. The opposite would be true. As it is now, if you win by one vote, you get all of the votes. So to use an example, if a state has ten electoral votes, whether you get 47% or 43%, might only be the difference between getting 5 electoral college votes, or getting 4. Maybe you get 6 if you really show out well. Not a big deal. Now every current battleground state loses it's status, because both sides know they will get probably 50% of the votes in those states, or at worse lose one electoral vote. That then puts it back on winning big in the big states. using weighted electoral votes is essentially a weighted popular vote. That would be good for the larger states, very bad for the smaller ones.

(12-20-2016 04:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 10:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its a great idea for MN because it ensures that both parties will show up there. As it was, you never saw Clinton in MN, because she took it for granted. In most cycles you wouldnt see a republican there either. By doing this, MN becomes a must-campaign state.

Not really. The opposite would be true. As it is now, if you win by one vote, you get all of the votes. So to use an example, if a state has ten electoral votes, whether you get 47% or 43%, might only be the difference between getting 5 electoral college votes, or getting 4. Maybe you get 6 if you really show out well. Not a big deal. Now every current battleground state loses it's status, because both sides know they will get probably 50% of the votes in those states, or at worse lose one electoral vote. That then puts it back on winning big in the big states. using weighted electoral votes is essentially a weighted popular vote. That would be good for the larger states, very bad for the smaller ones.

The last time Minnesota did not go to the Democrats was 72' (when only MA and DC went Democratic)....

In the nearly two decades I've lived here Trump was the first presidential candidate to make an effort.

(12-20-2016 03:21 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  And both are better than our current Governor, who is nothing but a mumbling child.

You'd think this was hyperbole, but no. Governor Dayton's nickname is "Mumbles."

(12-20-2016 11:55 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 10:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its a great idea for MN because it ensures that both parties will show up there. As it was, you never saw Clinton in MN, because she took it for granted. In most cycles you wouldnt see a republican there either. By doing this, MN becomes a must-campaign state.

Not really. The opposite would be true. As it is now, if you win by one vote, you get all of the votes. So to use an example, if a state has ten electoral votes, whether you get 47% or 43%, might only be the difference between getting 5 electoral college votes, or getting 4. Maybe you get 6 if you really show out well. Not a big deal. Now every current battleground state loses it's status, because both sides know they will get probably 50% of the votes in those states, or at worse lose one electoral vote. That then puts it back on winning big in the big states. using weighted electoral votes is essentially a weighted popular vote. That would be good for the larger states, very bad for the smaller ones.

The last time Minnesota did not go to the Democrats was 72' (when only MA and DC went Democratic)....

In the nearly two decades I've lived here Trump was the first presidential candidate to make an effort.

Fair enough. But what I was getting at is, ironically, such a set up would move the attention away from the current battleground states, and moved them more towards the large mostly uncontested states, where the extra votes mean something, whereas currently they don't.

(12-20-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It doesn't matter what is said to someone with a closed mind.

True enough, but luckily for you I am extremely open minded. All one has to do is present a logical, intelligent argument.

On the other hand, the more brazenly simple minded a person comes across, the more I tend to shut him/her down.

(12-20-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I really feel like this is the best compromise between the need for an electoral college and the desire for it to be more reflective of the general vote.

It's not a compromise at all, it's swinging the pendulum even farther out of balance towards people who want to rig the system.

As you know, congressional districts are all drawn unfairly. What matters far more is simply the majority will of all Minnesotans, regardless if all but five of them live in the same county.

(12-20-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  lets this go without a fight.

Of course the powerful DFL is not going to let this go without a fight. It will be interesting, nonetheless.

(12-20-2016 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I really don't care what Minnesota does

Your willful ignorance aside, this could be an extremely important test case that repubs watch very closely. If it gets passed in Minn, I'm not sure why they wouldn't try it other states with a single urban center that dominates the state population, and which tends to give all of its E.C. votes to dems. Illinois, Washington, Oregon, etc. come to mind immediately.

(12-21-2016 10:23 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Governor Dayton's nickname is "Mumbles."

And a brilliant governor he has been.

(12-21-2016 10:51 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 11:55 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 10:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its a great idea for MN because it ensures that both parties will show up there. As it was, you never saw Clinton in MN, because she took it for granted. In most cycles you wouldnt see a republican there either. By doing this, MN becomes a must-campaign state.

Not really. The opposite would be true. As it is now, if you win by one vote, you get all of the votes. So to use an example, if a state has ten electoral votes, whether you get 47% or 43%, might only be the difference between getting 5 electoral college votes, or getting 4. Maybe you get 6 if you really show out well. Not a big deal. Now every current battleground state loses it's status, because both sides know they will get probably 50% of the votes in those states, or at worse lose one electoral vote. That then puts it back on winning big in the big states. using weighted electoral votes is essentially a weighted popular vote. That would be good for the larger states, very bad for the smaller ones.

The last time Minnesota did not go to the Democrats was 72' (when only MA and DC went Democratic)....

In the nearly two decades I've lived here Trump was the first presidential candidate to make an effort.

Fair enough. But what I was getting at is, ironically, such a set up would move the attention away from the current battleground states, and moved them more towards the large mostly uncontested states, where the extra votes mean something, whereas currently they don't.

Sure but is that a bad thing? If MN went this way then you can be sure not only would the state get more attention but close districts would get attention.

In addition to that the border states might get more attention.

Hillary may have lost a couple of EV's in Minnesota but if she visited the state and used the trip to shore up support in Wisconsin she may have won that state.

(12-21-2016 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I really feel like this is the best compromise between the need for an electoral college and the desire for it to be more reflective of the general vote.

It's not a compromise at all, it's swinging the pendulum even farther out of balance towards people who want to rig the system.

As you know, congressional districts are all drawn unfairly. What matters far more is simply the majority will of all Minnesotans, regardless if all but five of them live in the same county.

So you're for an "all or nothing" electoral college but you're not for the idea of the electoral college.

The mental gymnastics are amazing!

Quote:

(12-20-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  lets this go without a fight.

Of course the powerful DFL is not going to let this go without a fight. It will be interesting, nonetheless.

I suspect at lest six Dayton temper tantrums this year...

(12-21-2016 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Hillary may have lost a couple of EV's in Minnesota but if she visited the state and used the trip to shore up support in Wisconsin she may have won that state.

That sounds like a fairy tale. Outside MN districts will never vote Dem. Likewise for WI. Likewise for the specially crafted/sliced districts to capture the suburbs of MSP and Milwaukee.

Sure, she could have visited the inner urban cores in Mpls, Milwaukee, and Madison ... but those were always going to vote overwhelmingly for Dems anyway.

Note sure this plan of yours will work the way you think it will ...

(12-21-2016 11:04 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So you're for an "all or nothing" electoral college but you're not for the idea of the electoral college.

It's easy and logically valid.

Priority 1) abolish the E.C. and use the national popular vote
Priority 2) if the E.C. has to stay, then the fairest way is to respect the will of the majority of voters within each state, regardless where they live.

Overarching principle that is correct: land area doesn't get to vote, only people do ... and their votes should be equal, regardless where they live.

(12-21-2016 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I really don't care what Minnesota does

Your willful ignorance aside, this could be an extremely important test case that repubs watch very closely. If it gets passed in Minn, I'm not sure why they wouldn't try it other states with a single urban center that dominates the state population, and which tends to give all of its E.C. votes to dems. Illinois, Washington, Oregon, etc. come to mind immediately.

Unlike the Socialist Republic of Minnesota here in SC we don't all have to cluster in a really tight group to keep from freezing to death so we have more than one urban center. We also don't have to worry about our state voting dim any time soon. The last dim to win a statewide election did so in 1998 and the only dim we send to Washington is the one from the federally mandated gerrymandered minority-majority district that runs from Charleston to Columbia in such a way to avoid white neighborhoods that at one stretch it's only 1.4 miles wide.

(12-21-2016 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  As you know, congressional districts are all drawn unfairly. What matters far more is simply the majority will of all Minnesotans, regardless if all but five of them live in the same county.

MN congressional districts were drawn unfairly??

(12-21-2016 11:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  district that runs from Charleston to Columbia in such a way to avoid white neighborhoods that at one stretch it's only 1.4 miles wide.

The practice needs to be abolished by federal law.

(12-21-2016 11:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MN congressional districts were drawn unfairly??

Yes, some.

(12-23-2016 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 11:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  district that runs from Charleston to Columbia in such a way to avoid white neighborhoods that at one stretch it's only 1.4 miles wide.

The practice needs to be abolished by federal law.

(12-21-2016 11:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MN congressional districts were drawn unfairly??

Yes, some.

Which ones?

(12-23-2016 06:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 11:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  district that runs from Charleston to Columbia in such a way to avoid white neighborhoods that at one stretch it's only 1.4 miles wide.

The practice needs to be abolished by federal law.

The only reason it exists is because of federal law.

(12-23-2016 07:12 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Which ones?

1,7, & 8 are OK. The rest need to be completely redrawn.

(12-23-2016 08:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The only reason it exists is because of federal law.

Not interested in SC's particular situation, what matters is going forward the federal govt needs to make law that prohibits congressional districts from being drawn in a false manner.

(12-24-2016 12:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not interested in SC's particular situation, what matters is going forward the federal govt needs to make law that prohibits congressional districts from being drawn in a false manner.

If that is true, then how are they going to create congressional districts that guarantee that a black will be elected? No matter how you draw up a district, someone complains. If you create districts according to population without regard for racial demographics, some districts will be created in which there will be little chance of a minority representative. If you draw lines according to the state's racial distribution, there are cries of diluting the voting strength of minorities. If you carve out a district in order to practically guarantee that a minority will be elected, then that naturally will diminish their numbers in other districts. So tell me how you would draw congressional district boundaries?

(12-24-2016 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  So tell me how you would draw congressional district boundaries?

There is only one correct way to draw the districts: you must entirely withhold the demographic statistics of the state's residences, and form the districts boundaries only with regard to the spatial distribution of population within the state.

(12-24-2016 01:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 12:48 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  So tell me how you would draw congressional district boundaries?

There is only one correct way to draw the districts: you must entirely withhold the demographic statistics of the state's residences, and form the districts boundaries only with regard to the spatial distribution of population within the state.

good grief, more libturd think.

How in the world do you believe you can "withhold" demographic stats of residencies? These are very readily available, and have been for years, used especially in marketing efforts. You're not going to be able to "hide" that info from anyone.