On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 07:10:50 -0800, sf > wrote:

>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.

exactly. It is intended to nullify the vote of city dwellers who tend
to be students, blacks, Latinos and gays -- the very people who have
been voting progressive.
Janet US