Will MI correct the Electoral College bias towards Democrats?

[hopper]

Sure, but then can we address the GOP bias in the House and Senate?

Call me when California has 10 senators, and Wyoming has 1.

If California had 10 US Senators the Dems could pass anything they wanted and it would become law with a Dem President in the White House.

[hopper]

I must remind you that the Electoral College was biased toward the less popular candidate in 2000.

Its not like Bush W. lost badly though in the popular vote. The popular vote was very close in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[hopper]

How about Republicans actually try and win an election fairly and by a system that has been in place for centuries rather then try to alter the rules because the demographics are not favoring them and they are doing little in the way of changing to win on a national level ?!

I never remember Carter Mondale or Dukakis coming out with this after they lost lopsidedly.

The Republicans could change tomorrow if they wanted to but what about their current base of support? Their current base of support is very conservative(juts listen to conservative talk radio callers) so it would be hard for them to really move their platform at all. Just listening to Conservative Talk Radio callers most of them basically haven't changed with the times they just stay in their time that they grew up in as a teen/early 20's. I have listened to some Conservative Talk Radio(Mark Levin, Inga Barks) and they haven't changed with the times on a lot of things. They didn't care  if Obama's Executive Order on Immigration passed even if costs the Republicans Hispanic Votes in 2016.

[hopper]

It's unlikely to make a difference, and even if it were to pass, the bad publicity could end up doing more harm to the Republican party.

In MI yes it would do damage to the 2016 Presidential Candidate there. Nationally no it wouldn't do much damage I don't think(maybe some though.)

[hopper]

Go to national popular vote, split electoral votes proportionately in all states, or stick with the current winner-take-all by state system. Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district does more to confirm the artificial divisions of some states into gerrymandered districts than to represent the People.

Any trick that effectively distorts the result of the popular vote other than the well-recognized winner-take-all system will be seen as disenfranchising voters.

True.

[hopper]

I agree with pbrower! Good for Governor Snyder for blocking these bills, and for confirming my decision to vote for him was the right one! If Far right Republicans cannot win in a general election without changing the rules to benefit them (like doing away with the congressional redistricting commission in Arizona), then they will lose support over time and be known as the  Corruption Party.

The Commissions Map was unfairly tilted towards Dems you have to admit that though. I  was not for bringing a case to court of the commission itself though.

[hopper]

Haha at Democrats panicking because they may lose EVs

Haha at Republicans panicking because they can't win a state fairly.

Because of ing Detroit tilting the whole state that would otherwise be a likely Republican state

Wrong. Michigan has given a plurality of votes to Democrats in each Presidential election beginning in 1992. Any scheme that would have given the majority of electoral votes in Michigan to the Republican Party in any subsequent election would be a gross distortion of the vote of Michiganders.

The split of congressional districts in Michigan (see also Ohio and Pennsylvania) is so designed that Democrats would need an effective majority of 55-45 or so for Democrats in the net vote for Congressional seats to break even in Congressional representation. Republican-designed reapportionment of districts has ensured that a small number of seats are easy wins for Democrats but all other districts have a clear built-in advantage for Republicans.

The worst possible result (short of a partisan governor deciding the electoral results on his whim) would be that districts allocate votes as they vote ion the Presidential race and that the winner of the majority of such districts gets the two other votes.

By the way -- why does a (presumably black and poor) vote in Detroit have less value than the vote of some rich farmer or executive? The vote is the only participation that anyone surely has irrespective of his economic plight. Government is responsible to the por as well as the rich lest one have a plutocratic oligarchy.

But keep pushing the agenda of the Koch syndicate and its legislative arm ALEC upon us all and your satisfaction at us liberals moaning and gnashing our teeth will soon be your nightmare, too. If black voters are the difference between democracy and fascism, then all hail the votes of black people who can keep American politics more moral than is the usual case of a plutocratic oligarchy.    

 

You guys have Soros and Steyer though. They push some of your agenda(maybe not all of it though.)

I do agree with you on "one person" "one vote" though.