Skip to main content

Republicans say, "If we can't beat them, cheat them!"

So it appears as if some Republicans are trying to alter the winner-take-all-electoral-vote model to the win-by-congressional-district model in some Democratic-leaning or battleground states that President Obama won in the 2012 presidential election. These states include: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), and Florida (29) - worth a combined 106 electoral votes. Due to Republican gerrymandering, this would have propelled Mitt Romney to the presidency this past election, even though he lost the overall vote by close to five million. With this new model, even though Obama defeated Romney by close to four percentage points in the state of Virginia in November, he would have netted just four of the state's thirteen electoral votes. That's right. In a state where Obama won by roughly 150,000 votes, Romney would have won 9 electoral votes to the president's 4. Make sense? I didn't think so.

If the Republican Party is able to get away with these changes, this country's "democracy" will become a bigger joke than Donald Trump's hair. No longer would the people be deciding who will lead this country. Republicans in the state levels of government would be deciding the matter. So much for the party that believes in freedom and democracy.

For as imperfect as I feel the electoral college is, it almost always rewards the most deserving candidate (as far as the people's votes go), and is therefore a much better model than the congressional-district one being proposed by some Republicans.

A winner-by-popular-vote model would be far superior to the congressional-district one as well, because every vote would need to be tallied and a rightful winner would be declared.

A partial-vote model would also be far superior to the congressional-district model, so long as it took place in every state. If the Democratic candidate won 62.4% of the vote in California, he or she would then win 62.4% of the state's 55 electoral votes (34.3). This model would also be likely to reward the rightful winner in most elections.

The congressional-district model, especially due to the Republican Party's gerrymandering, would be a horrendous joke of a model, and not a funny one at that. Here, while the majority of people in a state may have voted for one candidate, the losing candidate could still be rewarded with the victory. Even thought Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by nearly 5,000,000 votes this past November, under this model, Mitt Romney would have become the next president.

Honestly, what would be the point of getting involved in the political process then? Why would voting matter? Even if a candidate I voted for in the state of Ohio won the majority of the state's votes, he or she could still lose the state in terms of its electoral votes. This possibility should enrage every person over the age of 18 in this country. I don't care if a person is a self-described conservative, liberal, moderate, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, etc. - to hear that our votes may not count for anything should enrage us all and we need to do everything in our power to make our voices heard and to stop this attempted abuse on being able to democratically elect a leader of this country. Whether one resides in the state or not, I urge everyone to write or call the Governors of the before-mentioned states: Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Below I will list contact information to these six states' Governors:

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell - http://www.governor.virginia.gov/CommunityRelations/

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett - http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/governor_pa_gov/20650

Ohio Governor John Kasich - http://governor.ohio.gov/Contact/ContacttheGovernor.aspx

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder - http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869--,00.html

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker - http://walker.wi.gov/Contact-Us

Florida Governor Rick Scott - http://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/virginia-electoral-votes_n_2536561.html

Comments

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

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

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!"