The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

It's not my system and I did not craft it. But look at the electorial map and show me a single "purple" state (there is no such thing). And look at where most of the red states are. Burying your heads in the sand, and trying to compare me to Bush will not save the Republican Party from becoming a regional party. This is NOT a matter of "philosophy" but reality and you know it. To pretend something different is not only dishonest, but childish.

There are a few states in the mid-west (Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas) and Utah and Alaska (although they just elected a Democratic senator). But it holds little power outside of the "bible belt." To be sure there are religious conservatives in different regions, but they are fairly well out-numbered, just as liberals like myself are here in Texas and the rest of the Deep South.

 

Chandos, judging the entire future of the party by one election (especially this last one) is just as childish and short-sighted to boot. Look at all the battle-ground states. Loot at all the red states from the past few elections (and not just presidential ones). The Rep. party has strong roots in the south, yes, but no more than the Dems do on the west coast and New England. Are the Dems on the verge of becoming a regional party? I don't think so. Also, look at the division of the House and Senate. How are their states and districts divided between the two parties? You're trying to vastly oversimplify the situation all to make an attack on the reputation of the Reps, and it's pretty poor.

 

Before you start throwing comments like that around you may want to consider that it is based upon the last two elections. Remember there was one in 2006 in which the Republcans had their behinds handed to them as well. This last election showed that the Democrats are making headway in some states that have been fairly Republican in the past (VA) is a good example of such a state.

As for your false comment that I am judging the "entire future" of the Republican party over the last election, show me where I posted o the "entire future" of the Republican party. Trying posting something honest in that regard.

That was my comment. Where did I say anything about the entire future of the Republican Party? My point is that they are in danger of becoming a regional party. I can't say if that may happen or not, only that it may happen unless they broaden their appeal to mainstream voters. Especially if Republicans bury their heads in the sand in this regard, and take a similar posture as yours.

The results of the election map that I posted in the link, shows where the Republican support is at the moment.

Your reading comprehension is what's poor here - in this instance. As far as the reputation of the Republican party, that's pretty poor at the moment as well, judging by the last few elections.

Again this is from the same link I posted:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

 

Chandos ... things are getting a little personal again....

My point was that there are both democrats and republicans in every state, county, and city. Each party represents a philosophy of governing. There is no monopoly by either party in any area of the country (although there are distinct majorities in some parts of the country). The largest voting block is the independent moderate. Most of those moderates are willling to shift loyalties based on who they believe is best for them.

There is no true red or blue -- it's all different shades of purple. Politicians who lose sight of that ... lose.

 

If you have the numbers, I would like to see them. The best numbers that I've seen, show the Democrats with the majority of registered voters, while Republicans are second. Independents are the least amount, but are often the swing voters who decide elections, since the Republicans and Democrats are close in total size as voting blocks. I saw these numbers recently on TV but don't have a link. If you have something more, please post. I would be interested to see that, especially since I am an independent voter.

Purple states are never listed in election results because purples are regarded as swing states that cannot be determined before an election. They historically have voted for both parties. However, there are no purple states in the final results. I agree with the tenor of your statement, but the reality is that only one party wins the seat at the table - the one with the most votes, and thusly it sets the agenda (I think you use the word "philosophy" in place of agenda?).

 

Chandos: Most "independents" I know are registered as either a republican or a democrat -- otherwise they can't vote in the primaries. I think looking at numbers of registered voters is misleading.

Although I can't remember the source, I've read that about a quarter of voters are at either end of the spectrum (¼ democrats, ¼ republicans) give or take a few percent; these voters never waiver in support of their party. The rest make up the moderates who are basically an independent voting block -- granted, many lean toward one side or the other (I'm fairly red and voted democrat for only ~25% of the elected officials on my ballot). That middle portion is a huge chuck of voters who will swing either way depending on the issues and candidates. This past election that middle portion was pretty pissed at the republicans (or one in particular).

I really think the only chance McCain had was to court the moderates -- instead he chose Palin. He ended up making the people who would have voted for him anyway much happier while alienating the moderates. Purple decides the election and McCain forgot that.

 

I remember seeing some numbers shortly after the election that suggested that it may have been 54% Democrat, 46% Republican. Not as one sided as you represent. Yes the Democrats won this time, but in 4 years there may be another story...

That's why you never see them the day after the election, but those states that are close should be remembered for the next election...

I remind you that power is a fickle thing. One party may have it today, but if they are not vigilant, they lose it fast...

 

That's pretty much a historical thumbnial of how our politics have been, for the most part. You would think they would learn something from their mistakes.

 

If enough states pass the national popular vote bill there will be no more blue/red.

 

Proportional popular vote systems have always made more sense to me. I know that there are still some people who feel that the US is a collection of somewhat indedependent states that need to hang to as much power as possible but the reality is that the USA is one nation and different states are not all that much different from the regions in most other countries. One man, one vote no matter where you live have always made more sense to me. It must suck to be a Republican in Massachussets or a Democrat in Texas, your vote have never mattered and never would if the current system stays in place.

 

Welcome to the world that Chandos and I live in. We should swap houses.

 

umm, no joacqin it is different.
It would be like all of the countries in the EU having one popular vote for a leader & congress.
Small population countries, like denmark & sweden(just like our small states) would be powerless against the votes of the more populated countries like germany(like our larger states).
How would you like it if germany determined who/what your laws & leaders were?
In the EU if 2/3rd's of the 8 largest countries voted one way it wouldnt matter what the other 19 countries voted as they would have enough votes for a majority.
In the US it's even worse, 15 states contain almost 2/3rds of the total population. In fact the bottom 25 states together only have 1/6th of the total population.
Those states would NEVER even see a presidental candidate as they would be worthless if there was a national vote.
That is the imbalance(one of the major ones) that the electoral college was created to address.

Now do i think that the electoral college votes should be divided by the vote in each state? Yes. If you win 60% of the vote in that state, you should only get 60% of the electoral votes for that state.

 

I would have no problem with that and it is actually how I hope that the EU turns out but it will take a long time especially considering that each part is a distinct nation that can't really be compared to American states at all. One man one vote, it isn't the states that vote martaug it is the people in the states. Hmm, I missed the last part of your post. What is the difference between dividing up the electorate votes or just using proportional votes? Don't the states get their electoral votes based upon their population?

 

Each state gets 2 + a number that is equal to their # of representatives in the US House, & Washington DC gets a number never more than the least populous state so 3 ATM.

However, in most states whoever wins the election gets ALL of the points for that state.

Take my home state as an example Obama got 2,142,651 votes(50.8%) to Mccains 2,128,474 votes(49%) but he gets ALL 15 NC electoral points. Even though, clearly only half of the state voted for him.
I personally feel that he should have gotten the percantage that he won(in this case being the higher percantage 8 points for him & 7 for mccain)
He would have still won the election but it would have been a much closer race if the points were divided between candidates.

 

And there I agree completely with you and that basically amounts to a proportionate system.

 

Ah, but proportionate to the states. In this system, NC still has a noticable say compared to California whereas, by population or landmass, it wouldn't. Hell, even in the electoral system, there are about 7 or so big states that make up a sizable chunk of the votes. They're not enough to win with, but they're enough that you pretty much can't win without a few.

 

Yes Nog however, with proportional electoral votes for (just using 4 states)
California(61%/37%),
New York(63%/36%),
Florida(51%/48%),
Texas(44%/55%),
the votes are split
34 O, 21 M(cali)
20 O, 11 M(ny)
14 O, 13 M(fl)
15 O, 19 M(tx)
Instead of giving 113 to 1 party & 34 to 1 party, they are split 83 - 64 as the people voted. This helps all the voters in each state from feeling as disenfranchised as the losing party does each election.

 

Of course, as it happens the Founders, blessed be their names (we love how they touch us), didn't really want to make ye olde average citizens feel enfranchised. Or, you know, be enfranchised.

Jerks.

On a more serious note, the proportional thing really needs to be a federal thing, not left to the individual states. In practical terms, if you make, say, California proportional, well, what you're really doing is strengthening the GOP.

 

The thing is though, I do not see why any of the smaller states would want to pass this bill. If you live in a state that only has three electoral votes, you are further diluting what is already a rather small say in the national election.

In fact I'm curious as to how states with only 3 electoral votes would implement such a system. If we look at Nebraska as an example (which has 5 electoral votes and uses a type of proportional system) their rules are as follows:

* A presidential candidate gets one vote for each congressional district he wins (there are 3 Congressional districts in Nebraska), and the overall winner of the state gets the remaining two electoral votes.

In a state that only has 3 electroal votes, they only have one Congressional district in the entire state. So if they implemented a similar system as Nebraska does, whoever wins that Congressional district would also win the state.

If they just went to a stright proportional system, almost every 3 electoral vote state would be divided 2 to 1. Even the darkest red states still vote 1/3 democrat. (From the election the most red states were: Alaska (62% McCain), Utah (63% McCain), Wyoming (65% McCain), and Oklahoma (66% McCain)). No candidate would EVER visit states with only three electoral votes for what would essentially amount to one net electoral vote. (Although of the states I listed above, some of those do have more than 3 electoral votes.)

I agree that a proportional vote system would work well for the more populous states, but I don't see what's in it for the low population states. They would seem to lose what little relevance they currently hold.

 

AMaster, so what if the federal gov't passed a law saying the states' electoral college votes must be distributed proportionally, but leave the state electoral system in place? That would strengthen the GOP in California, but also the Dems in Texas, etc. while still preserving the electoral balance.