Trying to get it set up for the 2012 election. Would be a massive pickup for the GOP. If you use the 2008 election results, the state would've given 11 to Obama and 10 to McCain instead of all 21 to Obama.

I personally think all of the states should stay at winner take all or get rid of the electoral college all together.

I predict the Electoral College won't be going away anytime soon, and since I think it plays a very beneficial role in our constitutional system, my prediction is also my hope.

I have mixed feelings about district-by-district allocation of a state's electoral votes. In some ways it helps ensure that a state's minority is still "spoken for" when the Electoral College convenes. That is undeniably positive. On the other hand, it tends to make that state ireelevant in the overall campaign, because most congressional districts are gerrymandered to give one side or the other an overwhelming advantage, even if the state overall is a tossup.

(09-13-2011 11:49 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Trying to get it set up for the 2012 election. Would be a massive pickup for the GOP. If you use the 2008 election results, the state would've given 11 to Obama and 10 to McCain instead of all 21 to Obama.

I personally think all of the states should stay at winner take all or get rid of the electoral college all together.

This will help Obama, not the GOP this time around. Pa goes back and forth and there is a good chance the GOP get's it. In an all or nothing world that's the end of Obama but if he take half or near half it's still on.

That being said I don't live in PA they can give out their electoral votes however they wish.

(09-14-2011 12:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 11:49 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Trying to get it set up for the 2012 election. Would be a massive pickup for the GOP. If you use the 2008 election results, the state would've given 11 to Obama and 10 to McCain instead of all 21 to Obama.

I personally think all of the states should stay at winner take all or get rid of the electoral college all together.

This will help Obama, not the GOP this time around. Pa goes back and forth and there is a good chance the GOP get's it. In an all or nothing world that's the end of Obama but if he take half or near half it's still on.

That being said I don't live in PA they can give out their electoral votes however they wish.

hmmmm, the GOP hasnt won PA since 1988 and polling for next year's election doesnt appear that will change unless the GOP wins nationally by 10-15%.

(09-13-2011 11:56 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I predict the Electoral College won't be going away anytime soon, and since I think it plays a very beneficial role in our constitutional system, my prediction is also my hope.

I have mixed feelings about district-by-district allocation of a state's electoral votes. In some ways it helps ensure that a state's minority is still "spoken for" when the Electoral College convenes. That is undeniably positive. On the other hand, it tends to make that state ireelevant in the overall campaign, because most congressional districts are gerrymandered to give one side or the other an overwhelming advantage, even if the state overall is a tossup.

My issue with congressional districts being used is that it even further politicizes reapportionment. I agree that the EC isnt going anywhere, but if states start going to this method then they should just scrap the entire thing.

I resist any attempt to make this country into more of a Democracy. The 17th Amendment was damaging enough.

(09-14-2011 07:31 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-14-2011 12:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 11:49 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Trying to get it set up for the 2012 election. Would be a massive pickup for the GOP. If you use the 2008 election results, the state would've given 11 to Obama and 10 to McCain instead of all 21 to Obama.

I personally think all of the states should stay at winner take all or get rid of the electoral college all together.

This will help Obama, not the GOP this time around. Pa goes back and forth and there is a good chance the GOP get's it. In an all or nothing world that's the end of Obama but if he take half or near half it's still on.

That being said I don't live in PA they can give out their electoral votes however they wish.

hmmmm, the GOP hasnt won PA since 1988 and polling for next year's election doesnt appear that will change unless the GOP wins nationally by 10-15%.

The GOP just won a 3-1 democratic district in *QUEENS* last night... I am not saying that Obama will lose PA just that it may be very, very close.

(09-14-2011 07:35 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I resist any attempt to make this country into more of a Democracy. The 17th Amendment was damaging enough.

The constitution is pretty specific in allowing states to give electors in the method they deem right.

I am against state compacts to throw all their electors at the winner of the national elections but this way is *internal*. And there are still the +2 per state for the person who wis the popular in that state.

I think we should go back to popular vote. I think there were actually 6 candidates who won the popular vote and didn't win the election...thats crap!

(09-14-2011 08:16 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I think we should go back to popular vote. I think there were actually 6 candidates who won the popular vote and didn't win the election...thats crap!

So, you don't like a Republic-style of government then. I guess you prefer the mob-rule type.

Yeah, they always work out well.

I just think the candidate who gets the most votes should win...PERIOD. Call it whatever you want.

The electorial college insures that candidates can't take states for granted. If you go strictly to popular vote then candidates will never leave the east coast or California, save to go to Texas. It concentrates way too much power in bigger states at the expense of smaller ones.

The founders really did know what they were doing in setting up.

(09-14-2011 08:18 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I just think the candidate who gets the most votes should win...PERIOD. Call it whatever you want.

Yeah, it's exactly opposite of what the founders created. You want pure democracy. There's a problem with that; they always fail. The nation was set up to have direct representation in the house, indirect in the senate, and the President elected by people selected by your state leaders. I.e. it's why you have no Constitutional right to vote in a presidential election.

I understand that...it still seems a little unfair.

(09-14-2011 08:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I understand that...it still seems a little unfair.

You don't want the stupidest damn people in the nation having a say on important decisions that could bankrupt the nation. We have that now with fools like UMGrad. How's it working out?

(09-14-2011 08:40 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-14-2011 08:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I understand that...it still seems a little unfair.

You don't want the stupidest damn people in the nation having a say on important decisions that could bankrupt the nation. We have that now with fools like UMGrad. How's it working out?

Its working out ok. I still thing people should show ID and pass a competency test before being allowed to vote...and pay taxes. Most of the Dem base wouldn't be allowed in the booth. I still think the electoral college causes some states to be fly over states and they don't get enough attention. It needs to be revamped.

(09-14-2011 08:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-14-2011 08:40 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-14-2011 08:35 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I understand that...it still seems a little unfair.

You don't want the stupidest damn people in the nation having a say on important decisions that could bankrupt the nation. We have that now with fools like UMGrad. How's it working out?

Its working out ok. I still thing people should show ID and pass a competency test before being allowed to vote...and pay taxes. Most of the Dem base wouldn't be allowed in the booth. I still think the electoral college causes some states to be fly over states and they don't get enough attention. It needs to be revamped.

Working out OK? We have a 14 trillion dollar debt, a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, a 9.2-3% unemployment rate, the highest corporate tax rate in the world, for every 1.75 workers there is 1 on SS (this ratio used to be about 20-1), and we're on a path to destruction.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean our system of voting isn't working ok. It means our elected officials aren't working at all...big difference and a different issue.

(09-14-2011 07:41 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2011 07:31 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(09-14-2011 12:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 11:49 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Trying to get it set up for the 2012 election. Would be a massive pickup for the GOP. If you use the 2008 election results, the state would've given 11 to Obama and 10 to McCain instead of all 21 to Obama.

I personally think all of the states should stay at winner take all or get rid of the electoral college all together.

This will help Obama, not the GOP this time around. Pa goes back and forth and there is a good chance the GOP get's it. In an all or nothing world that's the end of Obama but if he take half or near half it's still on.

That being said I don't live in PA they can give out their electoral votes however they wish.

hmmmm, the GOP hasnt won PA since 1988 and polling for next year's election doesnt appear that will change unless the GOP wins nationally by 10-15%.

The GOP just won a 3-1 democratic district in *QUEENS* last night... I am not saying that Obama will lose PA just that it may be very, very close.

I agree but that's not the reason the GOP in the PA State House is pushing this. If they thought there was a great chance of the GOP winning PA, they would keep it as is.

The GOP hates fair elections. They want to keep as many people from voting as possible, ignore as many votes as possible, and rig every election possible. It's the GOPer way.