Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 18, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 190

Republicans don't change their stupid platform, instead they want to change election laws.

:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013

After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.

So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections.


That's right. When the party of grey haired men lose elections because of their stupid beliefs, pathetic economic plans, unreasonable social agenda, and lack of empathy for the masses they do not change their ways and adapt to modern society. No, instead they want to change the rules in their favor.

Bravo! Bravo!

Here's a George Washington quote about political parties:

The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.


[link]

Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well ... even back in the Bush Era, GOP was really a FrankenGOP: a) Social conservatives, b) Fiscal conservatives, c) Pro-MICE (military industrial congressional enterprise), d) Pro-Big Business. Notice that their agendas do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. For example, while the folks from (c) are into US military interventions, (b) are against it, while (d) largely do not care. The same with folks from (a). The other groups are not that much interested in social and religious conservatism. I think what eventually hurt GOP was the preponderance of social conservatives.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
What if a b c and d mated?:P
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I never thought GOP is into swinging, wife-swapping, and even group-sex, until now. Very naughty, naughty .... :P
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
Well if one of them was forcing his mistress to get abortions, I can't rule out swinging.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Considering the fact that the two states (Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996) that already use the Congressional District Method as an alternative to the winner take all methodology of the other 48 states and DC, only Barack Obama has split the vote in either state. Either this action by the GOP will not pan out as they hope or they recognize that states are beginning to buck the whole "solidarity" trend when it comes to presidential elections.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
"or they recognize that states are beginning to buck the whole "solidarity" trend when it comes to presidential elections."

No. They're not that progressive. It's all about weakening electoral college votes in states that vote Blue while trying to keep all the electoral college votes in states that vote Red.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
And that is a perfectly legal maneuver.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Gerrymandering is legal too. Doesn't make it ethical.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that manipulating district borders to give an advantage to one political party was unconstitutional.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
Funny, because states still do it on a regular basis. I take it you haven't taken a gander at Florida's district lines.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
Actually, most states do allow certain restructuring of districts as long it is done outside the election cycle. Whether you could call every instance gerrymandering or not I suppose would be the debate.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
Again, Florida.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconxxtraprince:
XXtraPrince Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Cry no crocodile tears over my party; we'll be fine. The American people know that when the GOP is all they have to defend their interests, we'll stand tall as we always have. Tightening election laws keeps minorities and other rifraff out of our voting booths where they can do real damage.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
:P
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
I think a proportional system is a good idea but it should be the same for all states. By all means use different systems in every state for elections just within that state but national elections should be the same process in every state.
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
You don't understand conservatism- the idea is that government should be controlled by them, therefore it must be structured to maintain their control. Rolling out to all states would jeapordize this, so they want to try and get it passed in states they lost in the last election, so they can manufacture a victory for themselves the way they did in 2000 and 2004 (and tried to for 2012 with government ID cards)
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
That infringes on the States rights to do whatever they want you liberal communist America hater:P
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Federal law overrides state laws and sice it is a federal election it should have uniform federal rules. Simples.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Oh you're a freedom hating communist:P
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
Proportional allotment of electoral votes actually fits more in line with the Democrat desire to go with a popular only vote. States have the right to allot votes in an all or nothing manner or go proportional. I am not sure why this is such a bad thing for the GOP to be pushing.
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
All I've seen proposed is to allot electoral votes by congressional district, not by popular vote. A state like Pennsylvania, where the popular majority has voted Democrat for decades but most districts are Republican, would have probably seen the majority of its electoral votes go to Romney last election.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
I never said they were pushing the popular vote, only noting that the congressional district method is closer to the former than the current winner takes all method.

The end result could be more battleground states. It could also alleviate the focus so much on states such as Florida (not entirely so, but reduction at all would be a positive step).
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
The problem with the district method is that it relies on non-static boundaries defined by the states themselves, easily subject to gerrymandering. The winner-take-all system is flawed, but at least it represents the will of each state; the way some states have their congressional districts drawn up, a candidate could easily take a sizable majority of the electoral votes while losing the popular vote.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
"Defined by the states themselves." It is the right of each state to select how it participates in a presidential election. I keep hearing that the GOP is gerrymandering but have yet to see any effects of it leaning their way in any significant manner.
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
I specifically avoided mentioning parties for a reason, but if you want an example of Republicans trying to game the system, look at Pennsylvania: as a state which has voted blue for the past two decades despite being a swing state, Obama won with 52% of the vote. However, looking at a map of the county-by-county voter count [link], Obama won a relatively small area of the state. Looking at the present congressional districts of the state [link] we can see the areas Obama won -- who, again, won the state -- maybe 6 districts total out of 18, and a total of 8 electoral votes out of 20. In other words, his 52% of the Pennsylvania vote would have won him 40% of the electoral vote. Does that look like an honest election?
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
Neither of those links show me the district electoral results, only counties.

Abnormalities like this exist because there is no way of reconciling every contingency. Considering that each district in PA consists of about 646K citizens, and the average vote per district would have been about 290K (I do not have time right now to research the actual registered versus votes by district) this would mean that mean that Obama won the state in heavy voting districts that outweighed districts where fewer voters hit the polls. Those red districts obviously had fewer voters show up at the polls and let the other districts choose their president (for all intents and purposes). In my opinion, the GOP would fair better by working more on getting out their voters to the polls, something the Dems very good at in recent presidential elections.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
They're only pushing for it in the States they lost.
It's not a proactive attempt to objectively improve voting, it's just an attempt to swing votes their way in lost States.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
And that is a legitimate course of action. Do it at the state level and focus on the states that they benefit the most from.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
Vote rigging is not legitimate
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
How is it vote rigging?
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist
I'd prefer the proportional elector method. It shouldn't effect the outcome of an election but it will give more of an idea of where the country stands with the candidate.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
I do not for the simple reason that it is essentially a match to the popular vote. Congressional district methodology at least gives each state some form of representation in a presidential election.
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist
What's wrong with that? Either way the majority will win. :shrug:
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
We would need to amend the US Constitution. It currently dictates that the electoral votes are used to elect the President, not the popular vote. This gives the individual states certain rights and influence in selecting a national leader, as designed by that pesky Constitution.
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist
Unless I misread what you said, I thought you said you didn't like the idea of all of the states awarding the number of electors proportionality to the popular vote. Some states do it already while most are an all or nothing.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
I am perfectly fine with states using the congressional district method or the winner takes all. I am not a supporter of a popular vote to elect our national executives.
Reply
:iconericthomasstudios:
EricThomasStudios Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
Making plans that are transparently petty, pathetic, shortsighted, and spits in the faces of the Framers they supposedly worship just slightly less than their God... yep, sounds like a day that ends in 'y' for the GOP.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
I know. Sounds like business as usual for the far right
Reply
:iconmeanus:
meanus Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
yah, the framers owned slaves too...you want that?
Reply
:iconericthomasstudios:
EricThomasStudios Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional General Artist
I'm not of the cult mentality of the GOP. They act like the Framers were gods among men, which is why they're hypocrites to continually make proposals that would likely make those people weep if they were alive today to see what became of their ideas.
Reply
:iconmeanus:
meanus Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
better the Framers than that fool Obama or George Soros
Reply
:iconenuocale:
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Why do they have to? Knowing that mitt romney of all people got 48% of the popular vote means if they could scrounge up even a semi likable person next time (unlike this time) maybe who pretends to not hate gays, it would be a sure victory.

Or are they admitting that doing that isn't their plan? Which would not be surprising.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
I think it's beyond just accepting they have no real candidates and that they're not going to give up on their out of date ideology if they can just change the rules in their favor.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
The right party in my state (in australia) changed the election laws, and basically became dictators.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
That's what Republicans want here.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Yeah, if it passes and they get in, expect constant reshuffling of the rules to make sure they get in.

Here, it took the supreme court eventually saying what they was doing was wrong to get them out :shrug:
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
here it'll probably be guns:P
Reply
:icontristancody:
TristanCody Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Student Writer
Could I suggest that we just stop for a moment and realize parties really come between ideas and meaningful action? At least, that is how I see it.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
The Reds tried manipulating things in Florida before the election and it didn't work. Why wouldn't they start trying again before 2016?
Especially in the States they lost?
Reply
:icontristancody:
TristanCody Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Student Writer
Well, I didn't exactly state anything pertaining to the questions you are asking. But, I could say that they could do what they did in Florida in 16 out of the realizaton their party is a dying breed.
Reply
Add a Comment: