On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:40:34 -0500, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:

> sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:47:00 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
> -snip-
> >>
> >> this was the best I could find after a quick search (I've got chili
> >> starting)
> >>
> >> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...the-party?lite
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/b93x3a7
> >>
> >I've been listening to explanations this afternoon and it seems to be
> >that every county would count as one vote, no matter how many people
> >that county includes. What a crock. Fortunately, it sounds like
> >level headed Republicans are as repulsed by it as everyone else is -
> >so hopefully it's a dead issue by the time you read this.
>
> Whoa-- it is a stupid idea-- but not *that* stupid.
> From the above link;
> "have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional
> district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state
> except for two (Maine and Nebraska). "
>
> In other words-- They are trying to replace the 'winner take all'
> system with a proportional one. Counties and congressional
> districts bear little resemblance to each other. The electoral
> college votes for each state are the congressional districts +2.
>
The Teapublicans are trying to anoint a king one way or another. They
couldn't steal the presidency, so now they're trying to cheat their
way in. That scheme will net us more and more elections that are
similar to the GWB election where he lost the popular vote, but won
the electoral college. In essence, we'll be governed by the few, not
the many... and it will be a regency of sorts.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.