There are way more sparsely populated red districts. Most blue districts are concentrated around the few big cities in each state.
Republicans are trying to Gerrymander the next Presidential election
- Thread starter Robbie3000
- Start date
There are way more sparsely populated red districts. Most blue districts are concentrated around the few big cities in each state.
PartyHeart
All Star
The people are often very stupid though. And this strategy obviously favors the Republicans regardless.
Brown_Pride
All Star
Does each district get a vote or are the number of votes per district determined by the population?
In other words will the big cities have more electoral votes vs the two farms and a gas station type districts? or are they both given 1 vote because they are each 1 district?
It's proportional by population, but the way the districts are drawn in some states it would give the GOP the advantage. Under some scenarios Obama would have gotten less EC votes than Romney in VA,MI, OH and maybe PA even though he won the popular vote in all those states.
I think the fairest system would be to abolish the EC system altogether. But it's just speaks volumes about the GOP motivations of why they are choosing to do this now.
Edit: Some of the states named above would award 1 elctoral vote to each district with the winner getting an additional 2 votes.
Brown_Pride
All Star
Ok so to make sure i understand...
State XYZ with 10 electoral votes with 3 districts, where the EC vote is split up across the districts as follows: D1: 7 votes, D2:1 Vote, D3: 2 votes.
Breakdown by district of popular vote winner
D1 - Democrat
D2 - Republican
D3 - Republican
Under the current system:
Popular vote of the state went to the democrat, so he get's all votes right (10)?
New system:
D1 - 7 votes go to the democrat
D2 - 1 votes go to republican
D3 - 2 votes go to a republican
That's how it works right? If so doesn't that grant the greater representation of the will of the people short of strictly going off the popular vote total?
Close the thread.
What is sad is that so many left wingers live in bubbles and are completely clueless about that Democrats past support for these same electoral changes. All these people do is regurgitate what they read on liberal blogs about evil Republican conspiracies to steal elections.
The left uses fear to scare and motivate their base.
**Opens thread back up**
See the key difference is that democrats were pushing for proportional electoral college votes. So if a democrat received 60% of the votes they would get 60% of the electoral college votes. That is fair.
What the republicans want is 1 vote for each district. So district A with the largest population (extremely likely to vote democrat) gets 1 electoral college vote and all the west bumblefukk districts where nobody lives (extremely likely to vote republican) also get 1 vote. There are more bumblefukk districts than there are districts with large population centers in most states. That is not fair. Under that system you can have someone win a state by a margin of 65% to 35% but get fewer electoral college votes.
It's only fair if every state does it.
Otherwise, splitting the EV in certain states (especially swing states) is blatantly unfair.
The whole "Im an independent im against the two party system because both dems and republicans are flawed and msnbc is the opposite of fox(which is a bad comparison)" mindset some of you guys have is really starting to get played out.
Take it easy. You can make arguments and have discussions without "libbies" or generalizing in every post
Ya and the right doesnt do the same
"you are either with us or you are with the terrorists"
-George Bush Jr
It would still be advantageous to republicans if every state does it becuase geographically the red areas outnumber blue areas, the only fair way to change would be to switch to popular vote
Well, it depends on what they mean by "proportionally".
If they divided electoral votes in some kind of made-up geographic way it would definitely be advantageous to Republicans. That would be unfair though since Repubs tend to dominate large, low population areas. But if they divided electoral votes strictly by the number of actual votes, and did it everywhere, I guess that would be fair.
Republicans tend to dominate sparsely populated areas (ie. the "country") whereas Dem votes tend to be concentrated in smaller, but more densely populated urban areas.
They do electoral votes the same way they decide the congressional seats, by population/votes and that gives republicans an advantage, that is why republicans control the house, any geographic division will give the republicans an advantage
If you want to give out electoral votes based on congressional districts then the first thing they need to do is have an independent entity that handles districting and election procedures. They do that in most other 1st world countries. I don't know why we let politicians draw up their own districts here.
I still don't think that is entirely fair. I still like the proportional split better.