Skip to main content

Election changes the GOP would like to see made

After losing their second consecutive presidential election, I've heard many Republicans either lay down excuses as to why they lost ("If it hadn't have been for Hurricane Sandy, then...") or make suggestions on how they can win in the future.

One suggestion I've heard floating around and which was written about in the right-leaning National Review is that Republicans should push for more states to go by the congressional-district model as opposed to the winner-take-all one. In this very model or some version of it, Romney would have won in two of the three possible scenarios. Romney would have won, despite losing by a little less than five-million votes to Obama - losing to the president by around 3.5%.

Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. It would have been one thing if Mitt Romney won the popular vote in November, yet lost in the electoral college, and Republicans decided to push legislation on altering the electoral college to a popular vote contest. I could have understood that. However, when their nominee lost by nearly five-million votes and 3.5 percentage points nationwide, it makes absolutely no sense to skew the electoral model to rewarding the nominee on the short-end of that equation. While we're at it, let's reward home teams in football games 12 points for a touchdown as opposed to 6, 6 points for a field goal, 4 points for a safety, and 2 points for an extra point. That way, if the home team loses, it will be because they REALLY deserved it.

The Republican Party - the party defending our freedoms, unless we don't agree with them. The Republican Party - critical of rewarding kids with trophies for participating in elementary school competitions, yet willing to hand the largest trophy in the land to the losing nominee of a presidential election.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko#

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/08/1177308/-NRO-Romney-would-have-won-if-we-had-just-changed-the-rules
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more