Voter Id laws to reduce minority turn-out. Gerrymandering to allow Republicans to control the House unless Democrats receive an estimated seven percent more votes than Republicans.http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=wp
Now the attempt in several states to have electoral votes awarded by district. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... -explained
Republicans are certainly not the democratic party (small d). More like the crazy right-wing controlled party that needs to cheat to win. (by the way, considering the blatant Gerrymandering after 2010 and this latest attempt to subvert the democratic process, is it not absolutely clear what the intent of voter-I'd laws was?

Freeman2,
I agree that the districts should be much move block oriented than the current system across the US. Look at Nydia Velasquez's seat. Does that look like a fair district or one that was Gerrymandered.

I'm also in a gerrymandered district as a result of one party controlling the statehouse. Check out the 4th and 9th districts in Massachusetts. Darn right wing nut job Republicans, I mean left wing nut job Democrats.

Wow, just WOW, so gerrymandering is now a "Republican" issue? Democrats have of course never done this to their advantage have they? (Look at New York Sate and see what the Republicans have done to my map but look at the Baltimore area to see what Democrats did there, both are guilty!)

And voter id is nothing more than a way to keep minority turn out low? You seem to be drinking the Democratic Kool Aid, it would indeed reduce some minority turnout but would it not also prevent voter fraud as well? I guess voter fraud means less to you than someone having to have to assure they are who they say they are? And how many of these minorities who have zero ID are all that likely to vote as it is? My guess is the number is about the same as is voter fraud. Both fairly low numbers.

tom

And how many of these minorities who have zero ID are all that likely to vote as it is? My guess is the number is about the same as is voter fraud. Both fairly low numbers.

then what are you all worked up about?

not worked up in the least, where do you get that idea?

fyi, I was talking to some people here about voter ID
When I vote, all I need to do is go to the polling place, tell them where I live and they open a book, cover my previous signature (after I get to see it quickly before they cover it usually) then I sign.
I have purposely signed it waaaay different each time just to see what they would say when the two do not match ...still waiting 30some years later. If I were to weigh one issue more important than the other, then voter fraud is far more important than not having ID. One can assure they have ID, only a change in the law assures fraud is reduced I can't help that while I can help myself to vote. But who's worked up about it? I simply called the poster on his "evil Republican" rant.

I think you may be underplaying the significance of this move. Allocating EC votes by district might be ok if it's uniform across every state, but it seems to be targeted at states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin etc that usually vote Democratic but have enough of a Republican vote to give the Reps a big share under the new system. That strikes me as being very cynical. They're not doing this in Texas or Georgia are they ? This could easily result in a situation where a Republican is elected President not just with a lower share of the popular vote but a much lower share. He'd be widely seen to have only gotten elected through cheating and his democratic legitimacy would be severely compromised. It's a very dangerous path to go down and could end up being disastrous.

It would have zero effect on the Presidential election as the states total votes go to the candidate with the most total votes, not broken down by district, it does however wreak havoc on Congressional representation. It happens in almost every state to a degree and Republicans do a better job at it no doubt, but Democrats have caught on and have taken advantage of Maryland and Illinois for example.

And yet there was little said when Maryland or Illinois did it...

No. The proposal is to try and change the way EC votes are allocated in certain states. This would mean that they'd be allocated by district rather than as a winner take all - but only in certain states. If it were to happen across the board then it wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but that isn't what they're currently trying to achieve.

Sass, you are right, but Freeman's approach is to lump it in with gerrymandering and voter ID to suggest that one party is sub-human whereas the other party is filled with righteous angels. That sort of blatantly partisan approach is bound to turn people off.

ahhh, unless he really has drunk the kool aid? If one reads too much of partisan blogs and such then they are bound to start thinking this to be the case. (I am not saying Freeman is this way, only a general statement that could apply to any including the possibility that he fell into that "trap" himself)

Posting was a little slow and I figured i would rile up the other side a bit...sure Democrats have Gerrymandered in the past, but I am pointing out three things Republicans have done since 2010 that are anti-democratic. So, yeah, compared to Republicans Democrats are
angelic...

But the most recent examples are in Maryland and Illinois and are both Democratic ploys, so yeah ...drinking the kool aid

There's drinking the kook-aid and there is looking at facts.clearly, whatever Democrats have done with regard to gerrymandering it pales in comparison to Republicans, else Democrats would not have to get seven percent more votes than Republicans to control the House. I also identified voter ID laws and this change in electoral votes in several key states as attempts byRepublicans to change the democratic process to their advantage (at the expense of democrac) Maybe you're drinking the Kool-aid Tom in failing to see a systematic attempt by Republicans to make up for lack of support for their policies by changing the system to stop the majority from being heard