U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:04 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 3,903,356 times
Reputation: 1584

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Or, this overreach further repulses the electorate to vote out the local politicians who put these laws in place.
Yes - that's what I meant.

Of course, the game-fixing began with state legislatures, so in many states Thug majorities in state legislatures are practically permanent. No matter how baldly they misbehave, their seats are secure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:04 AM
 
1,167 posts, read 944,518 times
Reputation: 345
MTAtech...

you seem to be an intelligent individual..which is why I can not believe how people like you...really believe that some faceless bureaucrat in Washington is concerned about the well being of you and your significant others....do you really believe that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:04 AM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,249,026 times
Reputation: 12580
I hate the winner-take-all system of awarding electors.

And I'm glad that states are discussing revamping how they apportion the electors.

I think that this particular proposal also provokes discussion of how congressional districts are drawn, and that's a worthwhile discussion as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:06 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,585 posts, read 1,909,079 times
Reputation: 1143
In theory, its fine, but I'm guessing they only want to do this in a way that will skew votes into their favor.

Florida is 50/50 democrat/republican but Republicans are so skilled at rigging districts up, they have around 2/3rds of the state legislature.

You won't see these GOP proposals happen in Texas, Louisiana, or Alabama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:07 AM
 
189 posts, read 314,563 times
Reputation: 243
The Dems need to push getting rid of the electoral college completely and changing it to a popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: "Daytonnati"
4,245 posts, read 5,965,053 times
Reputation: 2967
The approach Nebraska uses seems to make sense. If a candidate wins the popular vote in a congressional district, he gets the electoral vote for that district. That way you can fine-tune the electoral votes for a state...it wouldn't be winner-take-all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:16 AM
 
4,690 posts, read 3,903,356 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin_samurai View Post
The Dems need to push getting rid of the electoral college completely and changing it to a popular vote.
Of course, both parties should want this. But obviously, a party which has backed itself into a corner and faces the prospect of permanent-minority status will never agree.

So we wait until the fever breaks. Whenever that will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,522,600 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
The problem we face in this country is that we're getting to the point where a majority of the voters think "attractive ideas" are more taxes on others to pay for things they want without having to work themselves. We've hit the point where the takers almost outnumber the makers and once that point is passed it's only a matter of time before it all collapses.

Democrats don't see things like a job, hard work or fair pay as attractive ideas anymore.
So, you are arguing that it's just darn unfair or are you arguing that such policies are harmful to the economy? If you are arguing the later, there is no empirical support for that view.

Prior to the New Deal policies, most people lived hand-to-mouth and died without much, if anything. Seniors generally lived in poverty. Because of New Deal policies which raised taxes on the wealthy, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains, with a growing middle class. What also happened was America was amazingly productive and there was no evidence that the rich went Galt or that the masses became moochers -- all when upper income taxes were 90%.

You are also insulting millions of productive Americans, calling them "takers" because they work at needed jobs but just are compensated so low that they aren't obligated under current tax-law to pay federal income taxes. Oh, and if you don't like that blame George Bush who created the earned income credit -- a selling point for his 2001 tax-cut.

It's also telling that you call the people takers but not the corporations. Walmart, as an example, pays its employees low and encourages them to apply for SNAP and Medicaid -- essentially having the government subsidize Walmart's payroll. If you want to cure this problem, advocate to raise the minimum wage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:25 AM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,249,026 times
Reputation: 12580
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin_samurai View Post
The Dems need to push getting rid of the electoral college completely and changing it to a popular vote.
Because it really is the American way to have people in its cities dominate the selection of President and therefore the executive branch of government. Who cares about the people in rural areas anyway?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:28 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,110 posts, read 7,630,610 times
Reputation: 7096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Because it really is the American way to have people in its cities dominate the selection of President and therefore the executive branch of government. Who cares about the people in rural areas anyway?
Certainly not Democrats, those stupid people are all in fly over country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top