It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DAVID64
The Democrats and Obama's fan club are taking the loss hard and seem to be crying "The sky is falling" every chance they get. While they point fingers at the Republicans for their evil ways, they conveniently over look what the Dems have pulled for the last several years.
Hoyer spokeswoman Stephanie Young directed us to a December 2012 analysis by the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan, Washington, D.C. publication that analyzes and handicaps congressional and gubernatorial races, with the headline "House GOP Won 49 Percent of Votes, 54 Percent of Seats." (The story and corresponding chart are accessible to subscribers only.)
By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.
It was the second time in 70 years that a party won the majority of the vote but didn’t win a majority of the House seats, according to the analysis.
Cook’s House editor David Wasserman pointed to two "unprecedented" factors that explain the phenomenon: the thick concentration of Democratic votes in urban areas and the GOP’s wide control of drawing congressional districts in 2010.
originally posted by: Jainine
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
"GOP may revive plan to influence Electoral College". You have parroted Typical MSNBC (AKA the Obama Network) talking points. Did you see the MAY part? It's total partisan speculation and deflection on the part of MSNBC because their team lost heavily. It's just opinion, speculation, and fear mongering to keep the left wing machine that supports that network coming back for more partisan crap.
Fox does the same thing on the right side. It's a common tactic by the partisan media for their team. Speculative bias-confirmation opinion. MAY MAY MAY.
Jim Geraghty laid out a plan for untying the knot over the weekend, one that will make Democrats livid: Republicans in the state legislatures in several swing states could change how their states' votes are divvied up in the Electoral College, using their authority under the Constitution.
This isn't a new idea. As Matthew Yglesias notes, this idea has been proposed and rejected by Republican elected officials already in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Perhaps the proposal just seemed too slimy, even though it's constitutional. Perhaps those Republican politicians remembered why so many states adopted the winner-takes-all system in the first place, about 200 years ago: when a state's electors vote as a bloc, they're much more influential.
originally posted by: Jainine
Did you see the MAY part? It's total partisan speculation
Virginia was the first state to move on the plan in 2013, advancing a bill out of a state Senate subcommittee that would apportion its electoral votes by Congressional district rather than the winner-take-all method used in 48 of the 50 states.
originally posted by: buster2010
This is why we need to get rid of the electoral college and let the people of the nation as a whole vote the President into office not just a few states.
... nine states plus the District of Columbia have now signed on, representing 136 electoral votes. That's 50.4 percent of the votes needed for the plan to come into force and for the electoral college to be abolished.
But there's a catch. If you look at the nine states that have passed the plan (not to mention D.C.), all of them did so when both houses of their state legislatures were run by Democrats. All but Hawaii had Democratic governors, and the Hawaii legislature overrode the Republican governor's veto. There's nothing inherent in the proposal that gives Democrats an advantage, and plenty of Republicans — like former Sens. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Jake Garn (R-Utah) and former Gov. Jim Edgar (R-Ill.) — support it. But since the electoral college cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, abolishing it has come to be perceived as a Democratic priority.
As long as that's still the case, the National Popular Vote compact just isn't happening. The numbers aren't there.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The GOP would not win a nationwide popular vote, nor would they win if electoral votes were apportioned by state (which they are now). This is why it's so critical for the GOP to adopt an "allocation by congressional district" approach, to guarantee that they could win in the purple states and take the presidency without a majority of the people's votes counted.
originally posted by: howmuch4another
In 2012 Obama won by 4% in the popular vote with a 58% voter turnout. The electoral college looked like a slaughter. Romney was severely boycotted by conservatives. Romney still would have most likely lost but the difference in votes was almost the same as the number of voters who stayed home for the GOP.
Consider how that would have played out in 2012. If electoral votes had been allocated according to congressional districts in Republican-controlled states that voted for President Obama, Mitt Romney would have won 70 more EVs than he actually did. He’d have gotten 18 out of 23 in Pennsylvania, 17 out of 29 in Florida, 12 out of 18 in Ohio, 9 out of 14 in Virginia, 9 out of 16 in Michigan, and 5 out of 10 in Wisconsin. Under the current system, he won zero in those states.