Can Republicans "game the system" and guarantee a win in 2016?

[breakingcontact]

Here's an interesting article. According to this, the GOP can essentially, legally rig the electoral college votes in a few states and guarantee a win. The way delegates are assigned and even if elections have to be held at all, apparently is left up to the states.

I have not studied the election laws of 50 states, so I'm not saying this is 100% factual.

A totally legal, totally shady way that Republicans could ensure Hillary Clinton's defeat - Vox

The left is willing to win "by any means necessary"...

 

[jrbfishn]

Now that is an interesting can of worms there. Personally, I think the electoral college needs to be done away with intirely.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[Hoji]

Now that is an interesting can of worms there. Personally, I think the electoral college needs to be done away with intirely.

from an idgit coffeeholic

so california new York and Illinois can determine every presidential election?

 

[jrbfishn]

Good and bad in both systems. Last I heard, those three states don't have enough people do do that under a poular vote.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[Charlie]

Now that is an interesting can of worms there. Personally, I think the electoral college needs to be done away with intirely.

from an idgit coffeeholic

Winner ^^^^^^^^^^ Popular vote!

 

[Koinonia]

I think the story is a set up for when they lose in 2016. ;P

 

[Whistler]

Popular vote sounds a bit too much like mob rule for my comfort. Maybe if we change the candidate selection process and eliminate the two party system... sticky question.

 

[jrbfishn]

Could be wrong but last I heard, about two thirds of the poulation lives in the south. I would like to see a map of average percent of eligible voters by state. As well as how different areas of each state traditionally votes. Seems a log of people are misinformed about the whole process. A big reason people give me is that with the current system they don't feel like the vote will make a difference. Especially younger conservative people. People feel that the poorer population centers, that generally vote for the most hand outs, have too much "clout" under the current system. And to a degree, no matter who dtaws the lines, they are right.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[Acera]

I am more worried about the dems gaming the system. Something along the lines of letting millions of illegals vote with an executive order and then putting a Hispanic on the ballot at the last minute to seal the next 4 years.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Popular vote sounds a bit too much like mob rule for my comfort. Maybe if we change the candidate selection process and eliminate the two party system... sticky question.

Popular vote is essentially what we have, though, in those swing states in the Midwest and East Coast that are currently deciding elections.

I see no problem with this since it is up to the individual states and is allowed under the Constitution. Nebraska and Maine already do it. Also places more emphasis on state-wide elections which most ignorant Democrats don't vote in anyway.

 

[AustinN4]

I would like to see a map of average percent of eligible voters by state.

Did you perhaps mean registered voters? Many people are "eligible" but not registered, and of the ones that are registered, many don't vote.

 

[epwrangler]

Personally, I think Senators should go back to being elected by State legislatures. It is what the founding fathers intended. And leave the electoral college alone. This is supposed to be a republic.

 

[bowserb]

I think the electoral college, nowadays, mostly serves the purpose of preventing a third party candidate from being elected. If all elections required a majority popular vote for a win, with a runoff required otherwise, we might see some different election outcomes. There has been a system suggested that could accomplish that without the cost of runoff elections. It is called something like the Instant Runoff. With that system, you would vote your first and second choice. The Instant Runoff would accomplish two things that come to my mind for a start.

First, it would allow a third party candidate to actually get the votes of those who really believe that candidate is the best, but who now are afraid (and correctly so) that such a vote helps the less desirable of the two major party candidates. Ross Perot comes to mind. I did not vote for him for fear that what did happen, would happen. I know others who did the same. With the instant runoff, you can vote for the best man, and then your second choice can be the lesser of the two major party bad candidates.

Second, even when the third party candidate doesn't win, you get to "send a message" to the major parties, that their days may be numbered. After a few national election cycles, who knows? You could see the major parties be the Libertarians vs the Green Party!

 

[jrbfishn]

Did you perhaps mean registered voters? Many people are "eligible" but not registered, and of the ones that are registered, many don't vote.

Both.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[seeker_two]

Why not change the census to every five years instead of every ten years? Should accomplish the same thing. ..

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[TX69]

so california new York and Illinois can determine every presidential election?

That would start the second Civil War

 

[Army 1911]

Personally, I think y'all ought to elect me king er I mean president. I promise to fix all this in my 3rd or 4th term.

I like the electoral college. It keeps certain states from completely dominating. Not that cali, ny don't try. However, I might like apportioning a states EC votes to represent the percentages in that states popular vote.

Also there is nothing to stop an EC voter from changing his vote except state law and that would be after the fact.

 

[karlac]

Personally, I think Senators should go back to being elected by State legislatures. It is what the founding fathers intended. And leave the electoral college alone. This is supposed to be a republic.

This

 

[stdreb27]

When you discuss means of election and who holds the power of electing the federal representatives. You cannot disregard the balance of power. When they set this whole system up. The federal government was (compared to today) essentially powerless. The state's held all the power.

Today it's almost the opposite.

 

[epwrangler]

The federal government has too much power. It Need's to shift back to the states some and the little dictator in the wh needs to go now. Impeach him.