Let the Republican Vote Rigging Begin!

[Anonymous]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44540963/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.TnPDjXO4L-Y

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44540963/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.TnPDjXO4L-Y

proposal makes tremendous sense. just as it makes sense in states that typically vote democrat. why should a republican voter in MD get zero say? just like a democrat voter (and there are millions) in Texas.

[Anonymous]

When you make a change that benefits your party, immediately after taking control of both houses, it is not a principled decision to change your representation. It is manipulation of the political system.

Also, it severely diminishes the state's power in elections. If Obama knows he will get 40-60% of Pennsylvania, and so does his opponent, they have no reason to try especially hard to win the state because they are fighting for only 4 electoral votes.

The candidates rationally will give more time and attention to states that are winner-take-all.

Bottom line is that PA is a landmine for the GOP. They would rather have a sure 8 electoral votes than to work to win the state outright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you make a change that benefits your party, immediately after taking control of both houses, it is not a principled decision to change your representation. It is manipulation of the political system.

Also, it severely diminishes the state's power in elections. If Obama knows he will get 40-60% of Pennsylvania, and so does his opponent, they have no reason to try especially hard to win the state because they are fighting for only 4 electoral votes.

The candidates rationally will give more time and attention to states that are winner-take-all.

Bottom line is that PA is a landmine for the GOP. They would rather have a sure 8 electoral votes than to work to win the state outright.

then all states should make similar changes. do away with the EC all together, or at least lessen its importance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you make a change that benefits your party, immediately after taking control of both houses, it is not a principled decision to change your representation. It is manipulation of the political system.

Also, it severely diminishes the state's power in elections. If Obama knows he will get 40-60% of Pennsylvania, and so does his opponent, they have no reason to try especially hard to win the state because they are fighting for only 4 electoral votes.

The candidates rationally will give more time and attention to states that are winner-take-all.

Bottom line is that PA is a landmine for the GOP. They would rather have a sure 8 electoral votes than to work to win the state outright.

then all states should make similar changes. do away with the EC all together, or at least lessen its importance.

That would be great. Then our last president would have been Al Gore, and we would have been 3 Trillion dollars ahead just from skipping a war with a country that did not attack us. Justice Alito and Roberts would be replaced with liberal equivalents. No more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you make a change that benefits your party, immediately after taking control of both houses, it is not a principled decision to change your representation. It is manipulation of the political system.

Also, it severely diminishes the state's power in elections. If Obama knows he will get 40-60% of Pennsylvania, and so does his opponent, they have no reason to try especially hard to win the state because they are fighting for only 4 electoral votes.

The candidates rationally will give more time and attention to states that are winner-take-all.

Bottom line is that PA is a landmine for the GOP. They would rather have a sure 8 electoral votes than to work to win the state outright.

then all states should make similar changes. do away with the EC all together, or at least lessen its importance.

That would be great. Then our last president would have been Al Gore, and we would have been 3 Trillion dollars ahead just from skipping a war with a country that did not attack us. Justice Alito and Roberts would be replaced with liberal equivalents. No more

exactly. so why do you care about PA? They should do similar things in California and New Jersey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you make a change that benefits your party, immediately after taking control of both houses, it is not a principled decision to change your representation. It is manipulation of the political system.

Also, it severely diminishes the state's power in elections. If Obama knows he will get 40-60% of Pennsylvania, and so does his opponent, they have no reason to try especially hard to win the state because they are fighting for only 4 electoral votes.

The candidates rationally will give more time and attention to states that are winner-take-all.

Bottom line is that PA is a landmine for the GOP. They would rather have a sure 8 electoral votes than to work to win the state outright.

then all states should make similar changes. do away with the EC all together, or at least lessen its importance.

That would be great. Then our last president would have been Al Gore, and we would have been 3 Trillion dollars ahead just from skipping a war with a country that did not attack us. Justice Alito and Roberts would be replaced with liberal equivalents. No more

exactly. so why do you care about PA? They should do similar things in California and New Jersey.

And Texas, right? because you are being intellectually honest.