Posted on 01/31/2015 1:13:45 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
LINCOLN, Neb. - If this state had an official color, it would most certainly be red. Football fans don scarlet sweatshirts each game day, red meat is a dietary staple and, for decades, Republican presidential candidates filled Nebraska's borders on the electoral map with their party's name.
Use a link from this google search to bypass NYT's pay-wall.
https://www.google.com/search?q=blue+dot+for+obama+prompts+red+nebrask+to+revisit+electoral+college+rules&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=Palemoon:en-US&client=palemoon
If the ‘RATS love the Nebraska/Maine model for electoral votes, tell them to support changing Pennsylvania’s rules to adopt it.
Of course they will never do that because it would negate the benefits of the MASSIVE vote fraud they conduct in Philadelphia to tip this (otherwise mainly Republican) state into the ‘RAT column in presidential elections.
Consider if the law followed by Maine and Nebraska were in place in 2012.
That would put Romney in the lead--though not at a win.
Now, if I recall correctly, in Nebraska and Maine, the OTHER two electoral votes go to the "overall" statewide winner.
Romney won 24 states in 2012, which would have given him 48 more electoral votes if the Nebraska/Maine model were followed.
226+48=274 Electoral votes.
Valerie's man-child was able to seize 26 states plus the DC region. That would net her team 55 EVs.
209+55=264.
Romney would be the one working to rebuild America, instead of Hussein doing Val's bidding in destroying the republic.
Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler “Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”
Getting rid of Lee Terry was a major coup by the Tea Party. A conservative will eventually hold that seat.
Even if 2014 was repeated I guess the GOP Presidential candidate would win that district while 5% voted to help Terry lose.
There has been talk of changing MI to awarding EC votes by district too.
Most of the state is Republican, but RATS wind up with all the EC votes.
Brad Ashford 49% 83,872
Republican Lee Terry Incumbent 45.7% 78,157
Libertarian Steven Laird 5.3% 9,021
http://ballotpedia.org/Nebraska%27s_2nd_Congressional_District_elections,_2014
I wonder how that would have worked in Bush and Clinton years too.
Its cool how conservatives think its ok to “bypass” the pay wall. Just because its the liberal NY Times.
So, its Ok to steal from the NY Times.
Is that what we’ve become.
I had to break out the miniature violin & a new box of tissues while reading that article… poor Professor Smith ;-(
It’s up to each State to define how they want to appoint Electoral Votes, subject to the Constitution; no doubt that the current Nebraska method would be more representative in New York here, or any one where a megalopolis dominates. If they wanted to be “fair,” they would also consider not only the Electoral tally, but the Popular vote and the NUMBER of States that a Presidential candidate takes.
So sue me.
If the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would have taken care of this years ago.
Actually, prior to 1828, all of the states awarded electoral votes by congressional district. This lead to no one candidate getting a majority in the 1824 election, so the House of Reps chose the winner (as per the Constitution). The shenanigans that went on behind the scenes seemed to reek of corruption (search for 1824 Corrupt Bargain on the 'net to learn about it), so states began adopting the "winner take all" formula that is most widely used today.
One advantage of awarding electoral votes by district is that corruption in one district won't influence the outcome of other districts - so the Florida 2000 fiasco would not have happened. One potential disadvantage (depending on your point of view) is that third parties would begin to actually win electoral votes and make it harder for the two major parties to get to a majority.
We should also oppose winner-take-all states in primaries. It should be district by district goes to the district winner. Blue states are winner-take-all, they vote for the more liberal republican, they allow cross-over voting, and they tilt the victory toward the establishment.
How is it that “winner take all” electoral votes for a state is more appropriate than a due delegation of those votes through the districts drawn by the states themselves?
Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
Please bear in mind that the Progressive Movement had to defeat two constitutional firewalls set up by the Founding States in order for the corrupt feds to overstep their constitutionally limited powers and centralize government power in DC.
More specifically, the Founding States had decided not to allow ordinary, low-information voters to elect either the members of the Senate or the POTUS. But the Progressive Movement has already defeated the Founders’ purpose for the federal Senate, the Founders originally giving control of the Senate uniquely to state lawmakers. The Progressive Movement defeated this firewall as evidenced by the ill-conceived 17th Amendment which gives politically misguided voters the power to vote for federal senators.
The remaining firewall to be thrown down in order for the Progressive Movement to control DC through media-misguided voters is the electoral college for electing the president. We see this happening now.
Another way to look at this situation is the following. The corrupt federal government has unconstitutionally expanded its powers by winning the support of low-information voters by the following means. Corrupt politicians trick such voters to support them by promising them spending programs which the feds actually have no constitutional authority to establish, Obamacare a good example.
I wonder would it reduce or increase gerrymandered districts ?
So you are telling me you have a “gimmie dat” attitude when it comes to you paying for something.
And you wonder why businesses go out of business.
Interesting.
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.