FIRST

[SlowwHand]

It seems to me the fairest way to award electoral college votes would be based on the percentage of the popular vote. So if one candidate gets 55% of the vote then he gets 55% of the electoral college votes for that state. That's not how we do it currently but that is how we should do it as it would mean every vote in every state really does matter in national elections.

Or just go with the popular vote. Your suggestion is the same thing, with an unnecessary middleman thrown in.

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay, just read up on the bill. I don't think it'd be a terrible thing. It would lessen our clout in the electoral college, sure, but it would also mean we get fewer ****ing campaign ads. I think that might sum up to a net positive?

It's not any more anti-democratic than a simple statewide vote, Oerdin, it just happens to benefit Republicans for the last election cycle. If the democrats were doing this, you'd be all for it, you hypocrite. It's also TOTALLY constitutional.

[Guynemer]

No one is saying it isn't constitutional; it would be completely constitutional for Virginia to pass a law awarding all 13 ECs to the candidate with the name totaling the most Scrabble points, for ****'s sake.

It is, however, ****ing stupid. The EC would've been Romney 9 - Obama 4 under this proposal. I don't want you to offer a legal justification; I want a moral one.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, it would be no different than the way Virginia is represented in Congress. I think there's a good argument to be made that the way we elect congressmen in Virginia is more just than a statewide winner-takes-all for 11 seats, plus two senate seats.

I don't think this should pass. It's a stupid law, and it will hurt the Republican reputation in the state. I just don't have much of a problem with it.

[giblets]

Just sad. If Republicans want the White House they should run a candidate with a message that appeals to a majority of voters. The people defending this cynical political trick are even sadder.

[Hauldren Collider]

Looks like Governor McDonnell opposes the legislation. It's dead. Plus if even one Republican senator votes against it, it's dead. So it never had much of a chance of passing.

[Dinner]

Okay, just read up on the bill. I don't think it'd be a terrible thing. It would lessen our clout in the electoral college, sure, but it would also mean we get fewer ****ing campaign ads. I think that might sum up to a net positive?

It's not any more anti-democratic than a simple statewide vote, Oerdin, it just happens to benefit Republicans for the last election cycle. If the democrats were doing this, you'd be all for it, you hypocrite. It's also TOTALLY constitutional.

Wrong. The first thing Republicans did in 2010 when they won state elections was gerrymander congressional districts to hell and back. That's why in 2012 Republicans won more seats in the house even though Democrats actually got almost 8% more votes for house candidates. Awarding electoral college votes based on districts specifically designed to let one side win even if they lose the vote is clearly designed to obstruct democracy.

[Dinner]

If the democrats were doing this, you'd be all for it, you hypocrite. It's also TOTALLY constitutional.

No, I would not. What ever else my failings I have been rather steadfast in the principle that Democracy works and is a good thing. That's why I opposed Democratic gerrymandering in California after the 2000 census and have twice voted impose new rules which removed the power to draw congressional districts from politicians and instead have them drawn based on a math model where districts must be as compact as possible (no long snaking districts where a politician just tries to pick up one or two area here and there to insure he always wins), be based when ever possible on geographic boundaries with entire cities in one district where possible, and which are all of equal population. California passed exactly such a law and gerrymandering literally no longer exists in the state. The result has been both state parties magically becoming more moderate over night.

In the old 90-10 districts (where one party gets 90% of the vote) the general election doesn't matter and only the primary election matters. That means all the politicians went as extreme as possible in order to insure they won the primaries. No most of the districts are 60-40 or less so that being extreme is a death sentence so magically all the politicians want to be seen as middle of the road common sense types instead of raving ideologues.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is true... Oerdin has been all anti gerrymandering for ages.

[Dinner]

Looks like Governor McDonnell opposes the legislation. It's dead. Plus if even one Republican senator votes against it, it's dead. So it never had much of a chance of passing.

He was for it before he was against it. The subject is getting a lot of national attention right now and not only is it unpopular, for all their faults Americans generally do support the idea of fairness and democracy, so suddenly, magically even, the guy has switched course. He has hopes for national office and this would become a black mark for him; I suspect he'd be ok with it if he thought he could sneak it through unnoticed but he doesn't want to be tainted as a raving partisan the way Scott Walker has in WI. That would kill his ambitions for national office.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wrong. The first thing Republicans did in 2010 when they won state elections was gerrymander congressional districts to hell and back. That's why in 2012 Republicans won more seats in the house even though Democrats actually got almost 8% more votes for house candidates. Awarding electoral college votes based on districts specifically designed to let one side win even if they lose the vote is clearly designed to obstruct democracy.

Not in Virginia. PS: They won state elections in Virginia in 2009, not 2010. But the Senate was controlled by Democrats until 2011.

[Elok]

No one is saying it isn't constitutional; it would be completely constitutional for Virginia to pass a law awarding all 13 ECs to the candidate with the name totaling the most Scrabble points, for ****'s sake.

My wife, an avid Scrabble player, suggests candidates get a fifty-point bonus for having names longer than seven letters. We also note that such a system would give an advantage to names like "Barack" and especially "Kucinich," while further marginalizing poor "Ron Paul." It would also encourage people with Z's, X's and Q's in their names--e.g., Chinese and Latinos, and anybody named Alexander--to participate. OTOH, my son would get at least sixty points from his first name alone (including the bonus), and I don't like the idea of encouraging my kid to enter politics.

How would double and triple word and letter scores be awarded under this system? I am intrigued by the idea.

[Guynemer]

Hadn't thought it through, I am open to suggestions.

[PLATO]

Wrong. The first thing Republicans did in 2010 when they won state elections was gerrymander congressional districts to hell and back. That's why in 2012 Republicans won more seats in the house even though Democrats actually got almost 8% more votes for house candidates. Awarding electoral college votes based on districts specifically designed to let one side win even if they lose the vote is clearly designed to obstruct democracy.

Since both parties do that "first thing" when they get elected I don't see that as relevant. As far as obstructing democracy, the Presidentcy has never been about democracy...it has been about the states electing a chief executive to run the union...hence the electoral college.

[Tupac Shakur]

By the way, Virginia's electoral districts are paragons of reasonableness compared to most states.

This is true. There's no need to gerrymander districts when all the Democrats are already concentrated in three places.