Skip to main content

View Diary: Why GOP Congressional District Electoral College Plan May Backfire on the GOP (41 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Democrats should say they'll agree to the plan (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pierre9045, deepeco, coquiero, SilentBrook

    If Texas agrees to split its EVs on congressional districts.  If they say no on that, then call them out for their hypocrisy.

    Gerrymandering sucks, but the republicans largely retained the house because the margin was close enough for the GOP to win those swing districts and that urban areas tend to pack more democrats into fewer districts.

    •  But that's the point here (9+ / 0-)

      There's no way to threaten republicans in Michigan with a trade-off for Texas.  States are autonomous with how they decide to allocate electoral votes.  The problem is that red states will continue to be winner take all while purple states adopt the republican friendly gerrymandered scheme.  The net effect is that dem voters get shafted.

      •  If too many states have "winner take all" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, night cat, SilentBrook

        Then it is stupid for a state to cripple their electoral strength by splitting their EVs proportionally.  Maine and Nebraska are the only ones who do this.

        I used the Texas example for purely rhetorical reasons, of course.  It's a good counterargument in response to Republican talking points when they cry about votes from their side being disenfranchised because of the "winner take all" system.

        And if the 2012 elections was actually decided on a district-by-district EV basis, I'm certain that the Obama campaign would have shifted resources to those swing districts in order to win them rather than using the GOTV process in those safe Democratic districts.  The election results would have looked a lot different, and I'm certain that a lot of those red districts that elected Republican congressman in Ohio and Pennsylvania would have gone Democratic.  And the House composition in the end would be less Republican.

        It's like what George Bush said in 2000 responding to somebody who asked him if he felt that his mandate was in question because he won the EV in spite of losing the popular vote.  He said that if the elections was based purely on the popular vote, then he would have expended more resources to run up the vote in his home state of Texas.  If 60,000 votes had swung Kerry's way in 2004, then he would have won the electoral college in spite of losing the popular vote by 2.5 million margin.  But that was the nature of that election cycle -- and Kerry (and Bush) operated under the rules that existed at the time.

      •  So why do we keep shooting ourselves (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        night cat, howd, importer

        (figuratively speaking) in the foot

        For example, why isn't California gerrymandered in a MA or MD way, where we get WAY more Dem representatives than we should based on the popular vote?

        Like I say, we agree to "play nice" and by doing so turn ourselves into perennial losers.

    •  This is what I always say (0+ / 0-)

      when the GOP in someplace like Illinois whines about gerrymandering. "Give us Texas, suckers. Then we'll talk." I also say that to Democrats who tsk tsk about gerrymandering and think we should unilaterally disarm.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 08:27:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site