Dan Balz claims from his ivory tower high above all us peons.
Posted on 01/19/2014 9:22:33 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
A recent conversation with a veteran of GOP presidential campaigns raised this question: Which, if any, of the recent battleground states are likely to become more Republican by 2016? The consensus: very few.
That reality highlights one problem Republicans face as they seek to regain the White House after six years under President Obama. Lots of factors affect elections: the quality of the candidates, the state of the economy, the effectiveness of the campaigns. But in a country whose demographics continue to change, Republicans will begin this campaign with one significant disadvantage.
Over the past three decades, the political leanings of many states have shifted dramatically. What once was a sizable Republican advantage in the electoral college has become a decided Democratic advantage.
One way to look at this is by comparing two overlapping 20-year periods. In the first, 1980 through 2000, Republicans won four of six presidential elections. In the second, 1992 through 2012, Democrats won four of six.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Dan Balz claims from his ivory tower high above all us peons.
Dan Balz
WashPost Buries GOP Slam of Obama Regarding al Qaeda Resurgence; Runs Two Christie Bridge Pieces on A1
Wash Post Headline Trumpets New Poll: ‘Major Damage to GOP,’ Ignores Strong Disdain for Obama
http://newsbusters.org/people/dan-balz#ixzz2qxpedH9Z
Yes, under my plan most counties would have a fraction of an electoral vote and each county in each state would have an equal fraction of an electoral vote.
Take Texas for example, the state has 254 counties, but an increasing number of people, mostly liberal live in Harris, Dallas, Travis, El Paso and Bexar counties. These liberal city people may one day control the votes in the state in a manner that would disenfranchise rural voters in less populated counties.
In order to equalize the voice of voters in rural counties, smaller counties would have the same power as liberal big city counties.
In other words, the voters of Loving County, Texas would have the same voting power as Harris county Texas.
This is not a picture from some far away third world sham democracy, but rather from Ohio, right here in the USA.
Looks like blatant voter fraud by people who may not be citizens.
Electors are people, my friend.
To allow for a fractional proportional method, would need a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Without an amendment, the office of presidential elector remains. A presidential elector is a person, and a person’s vote cannot be divided into fractions. Each state would have to use a whole-number proportional approach.
Without a base-acceptable candidate, their path isn’t just uphill, it’s vertical.
States can assign electors any way they wish.
Well, 4 years actually but you're right. We had such an opportunity to roll back so much needless government but the Republicans in power squandered it. Bush so sullied the Republican brand that by 2008, Reagan himself couldn't have gotten elected.
With the Electoral College in place, states can’t split their electors, who are people.
A person’s vote cannot be divided into fractions.
That’s not what I’m saying.
For example, take a state like Texas that has 254 counties.
Of those 254 counties, 240 of the rural counties vote Republican and the 14 liberal Urban counties vote Democrat.
The Rural counties would thus control all of the state’s Electoral College votes and as long as Texas had more rural than urban counties, Texas would remain a Republican state.
beg to differ. I’ve seen the vote by county maps and in Kali, all the larger cities go to Democrats. You can see it all across the county.
Every major population center is blue. Cities control the election of the president, not the burbs or the county
I really want to get my poisoned chalice from Dan.
Because their bosses on K Street and at the Chamber are paying them to, and demanding results.
That's okay .... they'll have been paid, and they'll still have a monopoly on opposing the Democrats/Communists. For a while, until the Communists start arresting them.
16% of Americans live in rural areas.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
You misunderstand; I am saying that there is effectively no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties — just look at how the Republicans act on their stated party planks:
Guy's a typical liberal bottom-feeder and hail-fellow-well-met on the talking-head circuit.
As to the substance of your post in reply, you're quite right, they have no principles, really, just window-dressing banners for the rubes.
They're a back-room party that is more a lobby than a political caucus. They're professional shills for the Chamber of Commerce and sellouts of their own party and base, as you prove.
Map show a lot of blue and the cities red, what do we have? Back to back democratic president.
Most Americans believe, that where you live should not determine how much your vote matters.
Most Americans believe that the presidential candidate with the most votes should win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Having election results determined by the presidential candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.