While blue-state GOPs seek to split Electoral College, Nebraska seeks return to winner-take-all

[Newsjock]

Source: New York Times

... Nebraska is one of just two states, along with Maine, that do not award all their electoral voters to the statewide winner. And that meant that in 2008, Barack Obama picked up an electoral vote from the congressional district around Omaha, even as Senator John McCain trounced him across the rest of the state.

... So this year, a longstanding proposal to change the state’s Electoral College system to winner-take-all may finally reach the Republican governor’s desk, amid a renewed push by conservative lawmakers hoping to have new rules in place for the 2016 presidential election.

“It’s obvious that the majority of citizens of the state of Nebraska are Republicans,” said J. L. Spray, the state Republican Party chairman. “They want to have the maximum voice in the Electoral College.”

Democrats, not surprisingly, are fighting back. State party leaders have accused their Republican counterparts of shying away from competition, and are lamenting a possible return to presidential campaigns in which no candidates visit Nebraska because Democrats stand little chance for even a partial victory.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/us/politics/blue-dot-for-obama-prompts-red-nebraska-to-revisit-electoral-college-rules.html

The hypocrisy is stunning.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

1. Yep

Hypocrisy on the part of both parties.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. How do the DEMS do it? Any evidence? Any at all?

Yeah, I didn't think so...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. I didn't realize I had to meet your timeline n/t

[MrScorpio]

3. And how does this apply to Democrats in this particular case? nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. The OP pointed out the hypocrisy of the Republicans

based on what they're doing in Nebraska v. what they're doing in other states, and yes, they're being hypocritical. But the Democrats are as well, since they're against going to winner take all in Nebraska, while in favor of it in other states.

Of course each party is going to be in favor of what's best for them in any particular situation, that's expected. But that doesn't mean it isn't hypocritical, on both sides.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/01/24/430096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

State Sen. Donald A. McEachin (D-Henrico) called the proposal one of Republicans’ many “sore-loser bills” related to elections and voting.

“The bill is absolutely a partisan bill aimed at defying the will of the voters, giving Republican presidential candidates most of Virginia’s electoral votes, regardless of who carries the state,” he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/24/michigan-electoral-college-votes-bill_n_6213618.html

"It seems to me that the Republicans are throwing up the white flag, saying they can never win Michigan, and taking what they can get instead of competing for all 16 electoral votes." Rep. Andy Schor (D-Lansing) said of the bill during a hearing in the House Elections and Ethics Committee last week.

[MrScorpio]

6. The reason I asked you why you say that the Dems are being hypocrites...

Is because I was wondering where you got the impression that the Democrats in Nebraska didn't originally want to change the process to the current system.

Now if the Democrats in Nebraska were in favor of the winner take all system, because... I dunno, they once had control of the entire state of Nebraska AND sponsored the creation of a proportional counting process in order to cut out the Republicans, then I suppose that you could say that they're being hypocrites now. But Big Red Nebraska hasn't been controlled by Democrats since I dunno when, right?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy

even when it crosses state lines.

[MrScorpio]

8. So, I suppose that your reply is a tacit admission that you have no idea...

...If Democrats in Nebraska were against their state's own process of proportional representation in the beginning, right?

Why else would you go out your way to quote Dems from both Virginia and Michigan out of Nebraska's context? What did Nebraska Dems want in their own state originally as compared to what they want now?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. It doesn't matter what either party thought about it originally

If you read the OP, you'll see that the basis for saying the Republicans are hypocrites is how they feel about splitting electoral votes in Nebraska v. how they feel about splitting them in other states. Nowhere was it mentioned or implied that the Republican hypocrisy is based on what they think now about Nebraska splitting v. what they thought in 1992. The OP specifically stated they were hypocrites for opposing it in Nebraska while favoring it in other states NOW.

So my very simple question to you, if you think you can answer it without going off on unrelated tangents, such as the opinions of either party when the Nebraska votes were first split in 1992, is this: if the Republicans are hypocrites for opposing the split vote in Nebraska while favoring it in other states, such as Michigan and Virginia, are the Democrats hypocrites for favoring it in Nebraska while opposing it in other states, such as Michigan and Virginia?

[MrScorpio]

10. For one, the article is about what's going on in Nebraska...

What both the Democrats and Republicans want in their own state. Now, obviously, the Nebraska Republicans want to neuter the Democratic Electoral College vote from Omaha, while Republicans in other states want to change the process for the rest of the country. So, when you're talking about Republicans in general, their hypocrisy is apparent.

However, you were the one who went off tangent by quoting other Democrats from other states who were disputing changes to the Electoral College system as a whole, outside of Nebraska's context.

Where were the Democrats who has ever asked for the change to a Nebraska like system? The Democrats you've quoted all spoke out against something like that. No where are any Dems asking for a change at all. Dems in Nebraska are against changes IN THEIR OWN STATE without changes to that of other states. And Dems in other states have said nothing about the two states that already have proportional representation, they simply said that those two were enough.

I don't see the case here were Democrats are being hypocritical about this.

The onus is on YOU, dude. I have no obligation to prove YOUR arguments.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I'm afraid I think your standard is double.

You're accusing the Nebraska republicans of hypocrisy on the grounds that they support winner takes all while other republicans in other states have advocated proportional division.

You're saying the Nebraska Democrats are not hypocrites because, while other democrats in other states may favour winner take all, the Nebraska democrats themselves have never said they have done so.

Either standard - judging a party as a whole, or state parties separately - is wholly defensible. But clearly the same one should apply to both parties.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. I'm not sure I have time to waste

with someone that either a) didn't bother to read the OP or b) doesn't understand the very simple basis on which the OP made the hypocrisy statement, i.e., referencing Republican actions in other states.

My links to the articles regarding Virginia and Michigan were to show that in other states, Democrats oppose split electoral votes, while favoring them in Nebraska. Hence, in this case, Democrats are hypocrites, as are the Republicans, who are opposed to electoral vote splitting in Nebraska, but favor it elsewhere.

I apologize for assuming that you would be able to take part in an actual discussion around facts rather than simply participate in party cheerleading. Being a "yes man" might be good enough for you, but it isn't not for me.

[MrScorpio]

13. Well, hey… Let's just let the Republicans have their way way here.

In Nebraska, let's kill the lone Democratic electoral college vote.

Winner take all for everyone.

Anyhoo… Yeah, if you're going to accuse ME of being a partisan for Democrats on a Democratic website, it's a badge that I wear with pride.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. I'm of the opinion that if we can't get rid of the Electoral College

it would be more democratic (note the little "d&quot to do it the way Nebraska and Maine do. But it's up to each state, so whatever they decide, they decide.

And one can be a partisan Democrat and still admit that our party isn't perfect. While there are huge differences between the two parties in priorities and goals, when it comes down to the political nitty gritty, there is very little difference. Both parties are hypocritical when it suits their goals...that's just politics.