Friday, January 25, 2013

It's a numbers thing







and the following was 'tweeted' as a comment to the above post:


The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan: via HuffPost *Thieving Bastards*



 and this was called to my attention:



14 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome Javinn to penigma! Thank you for the comment, and I hope you enjoy reading here.

      Delete
  2. This is not "Rigging" actually considering it is more relevant to every voter in that the "Winner-Take-All" way of voting is diminished making the electoral college closer to the popular vote. It would actually be a better representation of the popular vote. Because the electoral college is not as effective anymore as it once was. This is not a red or blue subject but a more democratic way of electing a president. The people have popular sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. It is right wing rigging. As is right wing voter suppression.

      Delete
  3. OK explain because it just sounds to me that it is a better way of voting. Maybe I dont understand what they are trying to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comments are not a good option for explanations compared to longer formats.

      For this, see the original Huff Po article.

      Delete
  4. I see where the concern is and in states such as Wyoming it would not relate to the popular vote because the congressional districts could have a very small number of people in it and still get one electoral vote. But the electoral college is not a very good way either. Popular vote would be great except that it takes long enough to count electoral votes that it would be ridiculous to try and do that on a nationwide level. What does interest me though would be that presidential election attention would not just be on the states with the highest number of electoral votes but on each state. It would definitely provide for some interesting campaigning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our government could use some re-tweeking.

      I personally see problems as well with the limits we have on the number of Congressional districts. As population grows, we have more people being represented by that limited number of members of Congress.

      The original premise of the constitution stipulated a smaller number of people per representative. Time to expand the number of members of congress, along with un-gerrymandering those congressional districts.

      Delete
  5. GOP and the Democrats need to work together to find a compromise because neither the electoral college and the Congressional District way of voting are very efficient. I am tired of them bickering back and forth and its not just the GOP, Democrats do it just as much. I mean seriously we are adults we need to compromise. That is what the Constitution is all about, Compromise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both bicker; I would argue not equally. Nor is compromise possible when the sole intention is to obstruct, as has been the case by the GOP, not the Dems.

      Delete
  6. Interesting. Attacking Republicans because they suggest that any gun control is just a step towards a ban on guns...... and we are told this is silly thinking.

    Yet isn't this exactly the same thinking Liberals use when someone suggests any restrictions on abortion? That any restriction is just a step towards banning abortion.

    Seems people think the same about both of these issues and those who want to "restrict" either!

    I believe Obama recently said that no Constitutional right is beyond reasonable regulation - but I am sure he meant that to apply to guns and to NOT APPLY to abortion.

    How very curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no legitimate further restrictions on abortion that appear to be comparable to restrictions on guns.

      And no, people do NOT seem to think the same about both issues and those who seek to restrict them.

      The restrictions applied to abortion from the right are not reasonable and are frequently the result of the voiced intent to ban abortions entirely.

      Heather Adams, you would be wise to apply a cogent test -- which restrictions are based on science and fact, and which are not.

      The ones pertaining to abortion are not. It is a significant and substantial difference.

      Delete
  7. Heather,

    It's a fair question but a false equivalency. Roe V. Wade has been restricted and reduced, including in SCOTUS, since the decision.

    The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which until prior to Heller and McDonald was NOT imparted to the individual, has now been made very plain that it will be so imparted. That said, certain restrictions, like on machine-guns or nuclear weapons or nerve gas, are considered entirely fair AND affirmed by SCOTUS. The restrictions being sought by the anti-choice movement aren't very much in line with the SCOTUS' prior position, in fact, mostly those restrictions (those being proposed and enacted at the state level) are presented falsely, being about emergency room admitting privelege for 'safety' and the like when in truth it's really about getting RID of abortion. Limits on assault weapons or on weapon capacity is about THAT, not banning guns. in short, I suspect, if you could waive a magic wand, you'd ban abortion. I would not ban guns, and furthermore, there is a clear statement by SCOTUS any such attempt to ban guns entirely will NEVER pass muster. The same cannot be said about access to abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. in short Heather, gun rights have been expanding, not being reduced, over the past 30 years. The far right seems hell bent on undoing ANY restriction and on preventing ANY, even though they are entirely within the Constitutional decision. Abortion allowance has, by contrast been contracting markedly, but only by avoiding the fact that it's counter to the law.

    ReplyDelete