Skip to main content

John Belushi in Animal House wearing Electoral College tee-shirt
John Belushi giving Electoral College
 the respect it deserves.
Ian Millhiser and Josh Israel report that Jon Husted, the secretary of state of Ohio who spent so much time trying to suppress Democratic voter turnout this year, has an Electoral College plan for 2016 that he no doubt thinks could turn the tables in favor of Republicans. In fact, if his proposal to divide Ohio's electoral votes by congressional district had been in place this year in Ohio and five other states where Obama won the popular vote, we would now be talking about President-elect Mitt Romney.

If the system he wants had been in place nationwide in the past, we would never have had a President Carter or a President Kennedy, and we would have had a President Hancock and a few others not now on the roster.

Near every presidential election, there is a flurry of talk about doing something about the Electoral College, from tweaky reform to outright abolition. A few weeks after Election Day, the talk usually goes away.

In Husted's case, that seems unlikely. His proposal, as noted by Plunderbund, would follow the general lines of the Maine/Nebraska system. The winner of each congressional district using that method is awarded the district's electoral vote. Whoever wins the statewide vote gets the remaining two electoral votes. With modifications, this method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996. Only once has one of these two states split its electoral vote; Nebraska gave one to Barack Obama in 2008.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett sought to get that system set up in the commonwealth this year, but he failed. That isn't deterring Husted. If we've learned one thing about these guys that we should emulate, it's their relentless pursuit of their objectives.

[Husted] says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

That alone wouldn't, of course, have given Romney the presidency. But if just five other states where Obama won the popular vote—and thus all the Electoral votes—had adopted this system, look at what the results would have been:

• Florida's 29 Electoral votes for Obama, split 17-12 in favor of Romney
• Michigan's 16 votes for Obama, split 9-7 in favor of Romney
• Ohio's 18 votes for Obama, split 12-6 in favor of Romney
• Pennsylvania's 20 votes for Obama, split 13-7 in favor of Romney
• Virginia's 13 votes for Obama, split 8-5 in favor of Romney
• Wisconsin's 10 votes for Obama, split 5-5 in favor of Romney

Romney, who only received 206 Electoral votes under the current system, would have gained another 64 votes. Total: 270. Just what he needed to step into the winner's circle. Gerrymandering by GOP-dominated legislatures had a lot to do with how those congressional districts turned out. And it will until the presidential election of 2024.

If the system Husted and Corbett and other Republicans would like had been installed for nationwide for this election, Romney would have received even more Electoral votes. Republicans won House seats in at least 233 districts, with seven not yet decided. Add in two Electoral votes from the 24 states where Romney won statewide and the total count would have been 281 to Obama's 257. Even with Democratic wins in the seven undecided districts, Obama could not have won.

In 2008, such a change wouldn't have made John McCain president. He lost by 365 to 173 in the Electoral College. Shifting to a Husted/Corbett approach nationwide would have generated 237 votes for the Arizona senator against Obama's 301.

A far better system is the proposed National Popular Vote, which won't require a constitutional amendment to get a fix. As Markos noted here, making this happen is a matter of getting an interstate compact in which states agree to cast their Electoral College votes for winner of the popular vote. To activate the compact takes agreement from states with 270 Electoral votes. So far, we're not quite halfway. Nine states with 132 Electoral votes have signed on: California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington.

The Electoral College may have made sense once. Without it or something like it, there might never have been a Republic. But in the 21st Century, it's an anachronism, and the National Popular Vote is a means of deep-sixxing it without going down what is most likely a losing path of trying to adopt a constitutional amendment to abolish it.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:23 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh boy! (31+ / 0-)

    If he gets this on the ballot for net November's election, we will need to GOTV like never before to defeat it. This would give rural voters a disproportionately high impact and would also give more power to state legislatures to draw the districts. We will have to make a clear case about why this is an even less direct way of selecting the president.

    •  And it would depress the vote (12+ / 0-)

      because so many districts are set up to be safe.  If you're going to do this you might as well just set up a parliamentary system.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:38:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ALL of Ohio's districts are set up to be safe (11+ / 0-)

        That's why I laughed when people here wondering if Not Joe the Not a Plumber could win. No. And there are 11 districts in which a Democrat can't win, along with the four Republicans can't. And one swing district we'll take in 2014.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:56:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so are PA's (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          spooks51, Sister Havana, vidanto

          I Support Puerto Rican Statehood

          by InsultComicDog on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:57:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Popular Vote is a BAD Idea! (9+ / 0-)

            Just think how elections would be fought! Nobody would care about swing states because the margin of victory is so small (after all the effort spent on FL, over 8 million votes were cast and Obama's margin was 50,000 votes).

            Instead Republicans would spend all their efforts turning out votes in deep red states like Texas and Georgia, while Democrats would spend all their efforts getting every last vote out of CA, NY, and WA.

            But, the deep red states have right wing media monopolies! They never hear any competing views! It's easy to propagandize them and stir the useful idiot rednecks into a real state of fear and drive them to the polls.

            A popular vote system given our current media and culture war climate is VERY dangerous.

            We just have to defeat fascists like Husted and turn him out of office and prevent the legislatures from dividing up the votes along federal district lines.

            Vote out the Republican state legislatures like we just did in Colorado and we won't have this problem!

            •  So instead they ignore the largest states (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy, Albanius

              And cater to the politically necessary. The dems wouldbenefit greatly from a popular vote, as would progressive ideals. Sure, the pres might not pay as much attention to Wyoming, but the have senators.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:43:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I agree, Cugel: In the USA, (5+ / 0-)

              a straight national popular vote (which the National Popular Vote proposal would be) presents a real danger of providing the Christian-talking Money-led Right the opportunity to win "the last free election" in the republic.  

              The original reasons for the Electoral College are not entirely the same as its justification today.  Anyway, it doesn't help that everyone oversimplifies the Founders' plan as "we don't trust the masses."  Listen to Hamilton in Federalist #68 explaining the rational for the Electoral College - and consider the post-Citizens United increased national monetization of the most recent election and the character of Mitt Romney:

              Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
               Blame the EC idea for outdated idealism, perhaps; but the same basic concern for the power of demagogues holds at least as true today.  The more centralized the nominating and election process has become, the greater the danger a man of "low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" like the say-anything Romney will succeed.  N.P.V. increases the likelihood.

              Hamilton says, Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption - a danger much more likely in a single election than in its division among 51 separate elections (or 52 - welcome aboard, Puerto Rico...).  Corrupt interests would be served by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union in a single, manipulable election.

              The practical potential for manipulation of a national vote has only grown more powerful, not less.  Our objection to the Electoral College essentially comes down to the rare instances where it only closely, but imperfectly, mirrors the popular vote, missing the fine grain of a half percent difference in the overall electorate (as in 2000 - but that was as much a political failing as a failure of the Electoral College).  Solving that problem by creating a much bigger one seems unwise.  Look to our future liberty, not the last election; let's work to defeat the money-equals-speech plutocratic principle - and as we all just demonstrated: let's continue to organize, organize, organize.

              •  80% of Americans are Politically Irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                J Orygun

                The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

                80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

                Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

                The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II.  Near misses are now frequently common.  There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.    

                The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

                National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression.  One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

                The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes.  The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

                For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

                Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

                •  Well stated arguments - of course, there is a but (0+ / 0-)

                  1.  It stands to reason that one does not go after the states where the outcome is predictable, but those that can be shifted.  I don't feel resentment toward that strategic truth just because I live in New York (which, remember, went to Reagan in 1980 and 1984).

                     We seem to assume that that the politics and boundaries of the current red-blue divide are permanent and immutable.  I don't think so.  Parties may not shift seismically from one election to the next, but they do over 30- or 50-year periods.  I think it's misguided to forecast today's math onto the election of 2040, and base our longterm system on that thinking.

                  2.  I see no civic benefit to national campaigns that would smooth over local, interest group, and constituent interests that are amplified at the state level contests to a bland, uncontroversial, strive-for-the-center national campaign that would, I think, serve up even more political pablum than we're used to now.  As Jim Hightower said, the only thing you'll find in the middle of the road is a yellow line and a dead armadillo.

                  3.  I think concerns about voter suppression and corruption in a NPV vs current system are a wash.  Is the danger of nefarious practices stealing an election greater in a national system or one divided among the separate colleges?  Your math is sensible - until strategies are developed by plutocrats to steal an NPV election, a prospect I find much more worrying.  In either case, the answer is voting reform and vigilance.

                  4.  The demogogic dangers of mass money and the national interests of capital in a mass media universe - with or without Citizens United - are exponentially greater when playing for a single NPV outcome.  If I were the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson, I think I'd find that $50 million is more efficiently spent in a single national strategy than parceled among the various states.

                  5.  The principal that we are a federal and not a unitary system is basic to our form of government.  I think it will always present challenges, and will always present a bulwark against the ultimate danger of national tyranny that it was designed for.

                  6.  Without a constitutional amendment (yikes for a lot of reasons) here's what will happen under the NPV system:  if enough states pass it to participate, then those remaining outside it are the ones that will get all the electoral attention since those are the ones whose votes still matter outside the aggregate.  The ideal position to be in to maximize your own voice would be to remain outside the NPV system; hence, it will crumble.  In a related concern, I think the NPV will lock our nation even more firmly into a national permanent 2-party system.

                  7.  Finally, it is not undemocratic to hold that a nation of our size and complexity may not always function most democratically under the most democracy.  We temper democracy with, for example, a Bill of Rights.  We all know that if it could be put to a vote Christianity would be our official religion, English our official language, etc.  Those positions would win "democratically."  Would that be best for "democracy?"  Is democracy our only value?  Or is it one of our bedrock principles, sometimes in conflict with others, like liberty or fairness?  It's a complex dance.

                     Sure, small states, in a sense, have an amplified voice in the current system (as they most certainly do in the Senate, and then some!).  But whether that is more important than the votes of a big state with lots more EVs depends on the election.  Sure, many small states are currently Red; a hundred years ago, many of those same states were hotbeds of Populism.  

                  I don't discount your arguments at all;  all systems present potential dangers.  But I'm not swayed at all that the NPV proposal ends them without presenting new ones that may surpass the old.

                  •  # and Pop of Swing States is Shrinking (0+ / 0-)

                    Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

                    In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states. In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated. In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 9 swing states.

                    The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

                    States' partisanship is hardening.

                    Some states have not been been competitive for than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
                    •  41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2008
                    •  32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2008
                    •  13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2008
                    •  19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2008
                    •  9 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
                    •  15 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

                    •  But is the cause of this partisan divide (0+ / 0-)

                      the Electoral College, or does the EC just provide a convenient way to organize the data?  And is it wrong for parties to have regional appeal?  What would it say about the parties or the electorate if the majorities in most states were switching back and forth between distinct ideologies every 4 years as though deciding between Coke and Pepsi?  If we did see states swinging unpredictably between the parties randomly in each presidential election year, I think that would only mean that the cynics had won and there really was just a Demopublican Party or Oceania vs Eurasia (presumably both fronting for the Chamber of Commerce).  

                      Perhaps a better explanation than the Electoral College for the hardening partisanship of the states is the departure of the Right from post-New Deal American consensus positions, from the Reagan years on and especially  post-'92.  In other words: Yes, America has gotten more partisan with more fundamentally distinct parties.  If THAT is the problem, then I don't think the fix would be in the Electoral College.  But if (you and) I are right and the main culprits of partisanship are the Right, then I don't  want to unilaterally surrender fighting the partisan good fight to win.

                      Would a nationalized Presidential election smooth out the differences between the parties and make us less partisan?  Maybe:  by finding common denominator approaches that would play evenly across the land, like a wave of political muzak.  And that would be the lowest common denominator, I'm pretty sure; that is what always happen when you scale up a market for mass appeal.  WalMart elections, if you will.  Instead of Philly Cheese Steak, Cincinnati Chili, and New Orleans Po'Boys, it would just be the political equivilant of Applebees from coast to coast.  We wouldn't see more campaigning in more areas; we'd see less, but more mass-marketing.  

                      Perhaps another point to consider is demographics.  America is changing, but the main wave of New Immigrants only started in the 1980s, picking up steam in the 90s and 00s; as second- and third-generation Americans, they will continue to disperse across the land, shaking up the status quo; meanwhile, the attitude adjustment we are seeing in gay rights is now spreading beyond the urban areas, too, and is part of a process of opening minds.  I don't buy that America is static, and I definitely don't buy that it's the Electoral College that somehow freezes us in position.  

                      The left can win elections by 1) having clear and good ideas and 2) organizing.  We've proven that.  We don't need to change the rules of the game - and if we do, those rules will last long after the underlying game has changed.  And the new game of one-big-national-election would be spelled M-O-N-E-Y in letters big enough to impress even Karl Rove.

                  •  Every Vote Would Be Politically Relevant (0+ / 0-)

                    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

                    The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

                    Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

                    Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

                    When and where voters matter, then so are the issues they care about most.

                    •  "Every vote everywhere.." (0+ / 0-)

                      would be the generic same.  And that's a good thing? Mathematically pure.  Bad civics.  Reminds me of the joke about economists: "First, imagine people are perfect spheres..."

                      I also have to ask again:  is democracy our only value?  It is a value.  It must be balanced against others, like liberty, and fairness, and civic virtue, to name some.  And those don't always support the same outcomes; they are sometimes in conflict with each other. This is why, while supporting democratic principles, we were also warned by the Founders to guard against "the tyranny of the majority" - which is another way of saying "democracy run amok" or "democratic demogogery."  I have a hard time thinking of a system less problematic than the imperfect Electoral College.

                      You make awesome, highly focussing arguments, mvymvy.

            •  It is worse than that... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Steve Magruder
              But, the deep red states have right wing media monopolies! They never hear any competing views! It's easy to propagandize them and stir the useful idiot rednecks into a real state of fear and drive them to the polls.
              It is worse that that. Remember, that deep red states have election systems run by republican super-majorities. It isn't a problem at this point as we tend not to care about the results in deep red states.
              •  Wrong: more red states have extra electoral votes (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, Denver11, acnetj, Theodore J Pickle

                Under the current system, voters in mostly red low pop rural states like Wyoming & ND, which still have 2 Senators,  count 2 to 3x as much in the electoral college as voters in bluer big urbanized states with 2 Senators but 10-50x the population.

                There's no such thing as a free market!

                by Albanius on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 12:26:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Small State Realities (0+ / 0-)

                  In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.  Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) -   got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.  In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

                  In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

                  Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

                  Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue.  If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

                  Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group.  Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%,  NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%,  SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%,  and WY- 69%.

                  Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

            •  We need to imprison Husted (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wbr, Prospect Park, Steve Magruder

              There are plenty of Republican officials I'd settle for defeating.  But here we have the chief elections officer of the state abusing his power in unprecedented ways in an attempt to rig an election.  From sending out official mailings with lies about voting dates, to defying court orders, to firing elections officials who tried to let Ohioans vote.  If there's not at least one criminal act in the litany of his abuses, that's a severe indictment of our criminal statutes.

              "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

              by libdevil on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 02:47:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I was totally confused about the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        Electoral College, so I googled it. How to Understand the U.S. Electoral System

        Also, I have a new diary up. I think everyone will like it.

        Yes it's info I've had before. Since this is the time of year that a lot of organizations have fund raisers, holiday and craft bazaars, I think it's important so I made it into a new diary.

        Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

        by rebel ga on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:13:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, Husted. When & ONLY when (18+ / 0-)

      you push to get Issue 2 back on the ballot in 2014 and personally stump the state campaigning for it, telling your fellow Republicans that the congressional district lines are an abomination and a slap in the face of Ohioans. You push THIS without doing that, and not only will you see a referendum repeal on the ballot yet again, you will see your ass fried in 2014 and your gubernatorial hopes squashed whenever you decide to finally pull the trigger on THAT.

      I will have a LOT more to say about Jon Husted after I finish up helping to process and count the provisionals in Ohio. Count on it.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:55:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to get him out. Can we start building (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vetwife, grrr, RUNDOWN, wbr

        a war chest now?  He and the slim from Florida have to go.

        Expose the lies. Fight for the truth. Push progressive politics. Save our planet. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

        by lighttheway on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:12:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is "Issue 2"? (0+ / 0-)

        Please let us know what that is in reference to? Referendum repeal of what?

        •  issue 2 was.... (4+ / 0-)

          an initiative to take the redistricting process in Ohio out of the hands of the legislature, and put in in the hands of a panel of citizens.  Would've gone a long way to un-gerrymander the wacked-out districts we currently have.

          Unfortunately, Husted abused his power as SoS to, at first, submit a total bullshit summary of Issue 2 to go on the ballot.  He got slapped down by our (right-wing) Supreme Court, but then put a bunch of legalese on the ballot (the summary was two pages long) ... and the initiative did not win.  (Better details from OhioDem1 are here... )

          All the children of your children's children, do you ever think what they're going to find? Make tomorrow, today...

          by willy mugobeer on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:46:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Issue 2 proposed taking redristricting out of the (0+ / 0-)

          legislature's hands and turning it over to an even-less-responsive-to-the-voters appointed 'non'-partisan commission. It was thoroughly rejected. It had the support of the same kind of progressive that thinks the NPVP is sociologically consequenceless and constitutionally unchallengeable. In the age of Citizens United, after a century of corporate personhood, along with decades of ALEC-purchased legislatures, it is a sure-fire way for plutocrats to more firmly purchase, game and control the redristricting mechanism of American politics, because it leaves fewer and more obscure persons to pay off.

          I referenced your reply to Markos in my comment to MB, elsewhere in this diary thread. I found it brilliant.

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:32:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yea I had my doubts. (0+ / 0-)

            I found myself wondering exactly who would appoint these impartial saints.  My party said vote yes, and I did, but with deep doubts.

            Not like it mattered.

            Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

            by Boundegar on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 10:29:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Recounts (0+ / 0-)

            I'm also concerned about what would happen in a really close election.  Say the difference in PV was under 1%.  Do we have to recount the whole country?  There is some goodness in a roll-up system that isolates uncertainties.  I wouldn't mind seeing each states EV split proportionately to its popular vote.  But tying to CDs is a disaster because of how political districting is.  

            Would be nice to make districting much less political.  A computer could easily assemble districts with the minimum separation between people.  Or maybe districts could be something other than geographical.  Divide by age groups; that would be interesting.  

            I'm still mad about Nixon.

            by J Orygun on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:09:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Ohio had an issue (0+ / 0-)

      on the balloton Nov. 6 to get redistricting out of the hands of the politicians.  The issue failed.

    •  Gerrymandering congressional districts (0+ / 0-)

      who draws up boundaries for congressional districts - State legislatures or US House of Representatives ?

      the other night I heard Barney Frank say that the Dems would now control the House in D.C. if Republicans hadn't "gerrymandered" districts after 2010 victories . anybody know if there's truth in that statement ?

      right now, as flawed as Electoral College system may be, there's at least no direct party involvement (except 2 states) .  if Republicans introduce party politics, there may be a backlash -- and political clamor for national popular vote approach

      •  Yes, it's true (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans didn't just sweep into the House of Representatives in 2010; they also swept into state capitols throughout the country.  Those newly-Republican (or newly-super-Republican) legislatures, backed by Republican governors, took the opportunity to draw Congressional lines favorable to Republicans.

        So Frank's right; he's just not talking about the U.S. House of Representatives.

        •  I just saw a few maps on MSNBC (0+ / 0-)

          that illustrated gerrymandering in Ohio . damn! the visuals sure do seem to confirm what Frank said .
          and the MSNBC discussion confirmed that it's done @ State legislatures
          thanks Lt P.

          ( the Dems need to communicate all of this somehow - bc the Reps are emphasizing that their continued control of the US House indicates that Obama's victory was only middlin' )

        •  If you don't get how it works... (0+ / 0-)

          You draw the lines to spread out the opposition so they are a bare minority in as many districts as possible, then dump all the ones left into as few districts as possible.  

          If you had 4 districts in a state with 60k D's and 40k R's, you'd make three districts have 13k R's and 12k Ds, and the fourth have 1k R's and 24k Ds.  So you get 3 Republican districts and one Democratic.

          I'm still mad about Nixon.

          by J Orygun on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:18:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Frank slightly modified his statement tonight (0+ / 0-)

        on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show.
        He said that last week he slightly exaggerated the numbers -- that without redistricting, the Dems would've come closer to a House majority but would've fallen short.
        (doubt anybody will ever read this comment, but in a journalistic fact checking spirit, I feel the duty to report !!)

  •  Who are we going to run against Husted in 2014? (22+ / 0-)

    I want to know now.  Because I'm fired up to see him booted from office.  We can't afford to have him suppressing votes in 2016.

    Any Ohio insiders know who the likely candidates might be at this point?

    All the children of your children's children, do you ever think what they're going to find? Make tomorrow, today...

    by willy mugobeer on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:41:54 AM PST

    •  Try the Plunderbund site... (6+ / 0-)

      ...They might have some thoughts posted on this.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:07:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually follow candidates more closely (4+ / 0-)

        at ohiodailyblog.com. They lean more toward policy with a lot of Columbus insider talk. They're great on education, by the way; Greg Mild, a Columbus teacher, is their education blogger. Definitely worth reading if you care about education.

        Elections issues are my specialty, and they're going to be one of my main focuses now at the blog. I will have lots more to say about Husted soon, but I am wrapping up two months of work inside the Cleveland Board of Elections right now.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:00:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'd like to see Nina Turner go for it (5+ / 0-)

      Take about people who could wreak havoc on his ass! She has fought vigorously and loudly for fair elections, leading demonstration after press conference after sleep-in at the Board of Elections. The Ohio Democratic Party has to do some serious brainstorming about why it can't elect an African-American statewide though.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:58:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Congressional districts is not the way (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamar, TheChocolateChips, grrr

    We should go toward proportional representation, right?

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:44:41 AM PST

    •  National Popular Vote (8+ / 0-)

      An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally.  . . .

      Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

      For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."

      http://www.fairvote.org/...

    •  Not until every state ungerrymanders. n/t (10+ / 0-)

      As is, it's far less fair than the electoral college.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:01:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The national popular vote is not actually known (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, Matt Z, South Park Democrat, wbr

    for weeks after election day. Does the compact take this into account, or is the plurality usually clear by the end of election day?



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:47:59 AM PST

  •  Let's test it in Texas first. nt (18+ / 0-)

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:48:11 AM PST

  •  This Idea is Always Brought Up in Dem States (20+ / 0-)

    for just this reason.

    You had to hear Husted's voice saying the solution was to make his state just not matter any more. Conservative governmental philosophy in a nutshell.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:56:00 AM PST

  •  More crass politicization (6+ / 0-)

    if they had any principle, they'd want this nationwide, but no, just states where they can shift electoral votes to Republicans...next they'll try Colbert's complaint about winning the election by square footage.

    Moving forward, consider the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Deal for All as a solution to the lame-duck budget and sequestration crisis. Democrats won, now use that!

    by tytalus on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:08:13 PM PST

  •  Don't let kos hear you. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    He'll accuse you of engaging in electoral CT.

    Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

    by Words In Action on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:10:05 PM PST

    •  Why is THIS "electoral CT"? (0+ / 0-)

      THIS is the truth. Are you sulking because that other crap about secret software patches was blown to shreds? Boo hoo.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:03:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not electoral CT. (0+ / 0-)

        kos is just taking a victory-lap, claiming that right-wing operatives CAN'T steal elections, as if none of the outcomes this year weren't influenced by right-wing voter suppression tactics...

        Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

        by Words In Action on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 06:43:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Are they really sure they want to do this? (13+ / 0-)

    Gerrymandering results in districts that are safe, but lightly colored.   Demographic shifts in the next several years, combined with a more revved up GOTV program, could result in that EV still going to the democrats.  And as a consequence, the house seat that was supposedly safe republican might then also go to the democratic party.  

    There are fewer diehard dems willing to GOTV in redder counties, but they are there, and the votes are going to be found there, if they aren't there already.   Making the house seat a bonus prize for grabbing that EV for your candidate will have unintended consequences.

    Short response to Husted:  don't stir up a hornet's nest.
    Slighty shorter response: don't shit where you eat.  

  •  OH won't do it for the same reason PA didn't (8+ / 0-)

    MONEY...  Millions were spent in Ohio this year for the election because of it's battleground status.  If OH splits on congressional districts, that money will go to States that are winner take all because it's bigger bang for your buck.

  •  Err... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Tamar, cai

    "Presidential election 2022"?

    If that happens then we have bigger things to discuss than the electoral college.

    Take it easy, but take it.

    by ltsply2 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:29:33 PM PST

    •  Point. It's the redistricting that will... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cai, grrr

      ...happen about then. Thanks. Fixed.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:36:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, if Puerto Rico becomes a state... (5+ / 0-)

        ...won't national redistricting have to happen?

        •  Meaning (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steve Magruder

          (and I should have said this in the above comment) that redistricting could happen a LOT sooner.

        •  My guess is that they might decide... (6+ / 0-)

          ...to add seats temporarily the way they did in 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii became states and we had 438 members for a short while. After redistricting from the 1960 Census was carried out, Congress reverted to 435 seats.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:06:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How many House seats (0+ / 0-)

            ...would there be if the apportionment was actually fair, using the same number of people in every district from Wyoming on up?

            "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

            by eyeswideopen on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:19:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  More math than I want to do, lol. Suffice it... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              beijingbetty

              ...to say it would be more. Currently, CDs each have about 700,000 population. Only Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota have smaller populations than that and still get a rep. So Wyoming, with only 570,000 population gets as many reps as Montana, with a million population.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 01:37:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you wanted to get all the districts to +/- 10% (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              untorqued

              of a given target size, you'd need a target size of about 190,000 per district.

              At that target:
              Wyoming and Vermont would each get 3
              California would get 198
              There would be 1,637 total House districts
              The largest districts would be in Vermont, averaging 208,810 people each
              The smallest districts would be in North Dakota, averaging 170,983 each.

              Of course, you can set the tolerance on min and max district size smaller and end up with a lot more districts; this is just a PUMA ballpark.

              •  Either by setting the smallest state's population (0+ / 0-)

                as the target district size,or another method, I would love to see smaller districts and a larger House.  700,000+ for a Congressional district (and growing all the time) is not a sustainable size for a representative democracy.  Something over a thousand reps sounds about right.
                Perhaps if the original "smallest district" was 30,000, then 10 times that size in our more rapid world should be the limit (Wyoming gets 2, California gets 125, etc.) and we'd get a House with a bit more than 1,000 Representatives now...

      •  you can redistrict ANY year (3+ / 0-)

        Texas did and the Supremes approved, states have to redistrict after a census, but there is nothing against doing it more often.

        We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

        by Urban Owl on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:35:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sure lets do this only if you agree to (3+ / 0-)

    non-partisan boundary committees, no Gerrymandering allowed.

    •  MB, this is another good subject for a diary (6+ / 0-)

      How can the Dems ever re-take the house with all of this Republican gerrymandering?  We need non-partisan boundary committees in each of these states.  We need to do it by ballot initiative, and local legislators.  This should be Nancy Pelosi's top priority in the next 2 years, or whoever is the House Minority leader.  

      "Speak out, judge fairly, and defend the rights of oppressed and needy people." Proverbs 31:9

      by zdefender on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:46:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was on the ballot in Ohio this year (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri

        and went down to defeat. Husted and his buddies pulled out all the stops to defeat it, including some very dirty tricks. Just watch though If Democrats take the key redistricting offices in 2020, you will see Husted trying to put an identical amendment on the ballot. Mark my words.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:05:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It won't be as hard as you think (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr, Quantumlogic

        Demographics change quite rapidly as do attitudes.  An OFA type effort focused on close districts in 2014 could swing the house

        •  Not buying it (0+ / 0-)

          I live in of those gerrymandered etch a sketch districts in Ohio and I can tell you the competitiveness in this district has gone from bad to nonexistent and people here in SW Ohio are set in stone. The demographics will not change enough over the next decade to make a wit of difference where I live.

          Just another day in Oceania.

          by drshatterhand on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:32:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Link to Neutral (Non-gerrymanderd) Districts (0+ / 0-)

    Makes more sense than current system IF gerrymandering not allowed.  Would be close to proportional representation.  Not fair if applied to states like Florida where extreme manipulation of districts the rule.

  •  I will never understand why you have to have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayBat, vidanto

    an electoral college. It's an exercise in inefficiency, unfairness, confusion and an effort in avoiding transparency.

    It's one of the reasons I don't like to become a US citizen. And that's really a sad thing to say. Well, now I said it and am stuck with it. I hope for a reform that is meaningful. I would like my son to live in a fairer and better democracy than the US represents right now.

    •  Well, the Founders didn't particularly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vidanto

      want the rabble deciding elections -- you had to be a white male landowner just to vote, and even then, they wanted the electoral college between the rabble and the presidency.  They were small-r republicans, for the most part, not small-d democrats.

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, history lesson, fine - I don't live in the (0+ / 0-)

        past. And so are all of today's voters. How about thinking about why the country seems to be unable to reform itself.

      •  Property - Not Land (0+ / 0-)

        The states had property ownership requirements for the exercise of the franchise and for holding elective office.

        NOT specifically land.

        For example, in South Carolina, to be eligible to vote, a citizen needed meet the minimum property requirement of five negro slaves.

        To hold elective office a South Carolina citizen needed to meet the minimum property requirement of fifty negro slaves.

  •  Another layer in the pyramid (5+ / 0-)

    Right now, the President is elected by 538 men and women whom we select, but who technically can choose whomever they want. That's one layer of a pyramid between the voters and the President. Under winner-take-all state-by-state, the effectiveness of our vote is limited by state boundaries. Most Americans are in "spectator states".

    The Husted approach would create yet another layer between the voters and the President, namely the state officials who draw Congressional district lines.  Under winner-take-all district-by-district, the state officials would determine who lived in competitive districts, and therefore had an effective vote, and create an even larger number of "spectators".

    The more remote the choice gets from the people as a whole, the less legitimate the result will be.

  •  Indeed. (0+ / 0-)

    Federal-level election, federal-level tallying. Congressional districts won by the popular vote of that congressional district. Senatorial seats won by the popular vote of that state. Presidential elections won by the popular vote of the country. Seems easy enough as a concept.

    And it would hurt the Democrats, at this point, to go away from the electoral college. So this is an argument against interest. But it's the right way to go. Time to stop ignoring Texas, New York, and California's voters in presidential elections.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:35:56 PM PST

  •  I don't think I like a national popular vote (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, Dream It Real, happymisanthropy

    I'm concerned it fosters large scale corruption. Right now each State is capped on its influence by the number of electoral votes. Under a national popular vote system corruption in California could turn a 60/40 split into a 55/45 split and change the outcome of the election.

    Right now, they'd have to change 60/40 to 49/51. A much more obviously corrupt outcome.

    Now, I also don't like the district allocation of EV method as it's open to the corruption of gerrymandering.

    •  This makes no sense. Nothing about a national (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ConfusedSkyes

      popular vote would foster more corruption.  In fact it would dilute corruption because we wouldn't have to worry about some lone secretary of state in a swing state (like Ohio) throwing the entire election.

      •  don't know why you would say that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miggles, Dream It Real

        Each State would still the election, including that lone secretary of state. You're assuming the margin of victory would always be wide enough to prevent it?

        •  oops - "would still run the elections" (0+ / 0-)

          eom

        •  But that corruption, say, in Ohio would be (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Native Light, ConfusedSkyes

          swamped out by clean election results in California or New York.  We also have several states subject to the Voting Rights Act (AZ and many southern states) that have federal oversight, so again any lone secretary of state in a Voting Rights Act state couldn't skew the result either.  I just don't see how an argument of corruption at local or state levels would subvert a national popular vote.  If anything, the current system involving the electoral college is far more prone to local corruption throwing the national result one way or the other.  A national popular vote dilutes the effects of any local level corruption.

          •  I don't see that (0+ / 0-)

            I can understand the perspective, but we're still counting votes around the Country days later.

            shrug, I don't know. We are a United States of America and so I'm not ready to believe State run elections combined with a National vote count works. I get the EV system where each State has it's weighted contribution to electing the President. California gets to decide how it votes, and Ohio has no dog in that hunt.

            •  State Run Elections Now Affect Rest of Us (0+ / 0-)

              Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

              Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state.  The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.

      •  no (0+ / 0-)

        if a red state fabricates more votes for Romney, it achieves nothing under the present system.  Under a national popular vote system, a solid-red district with republican administrators can lean as hard as they want to on the scale.

        It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

        by happymisanthropy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:15:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good point. One of the upsides of living (0+ / 0-)

      in a non-swing state is that there are fewer shenanigans aimed at stealing my vote.

      Does it hurt the vote-suppressors more to have 50 states and endless districts to act on?  Or does it hurt those trying to defend our vote more?

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:59:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One cannot accurately assert that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee, scamperdo, cai, nominalize

    Obama would not have won if the criteria for winning we're changed.  If the game rules were changed, Obama's strategies would also have changed.  He was aiming at the current electoral collage and won a large victory.  If he were aiming at the national popular vote or some other outcome measure, he would possibly (likely) have won a large victory anyway.  The point is, he knows how to win.

    I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

    by fayea on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:38:42 PM PST

  •  Husted is a Tea Party fascist (0+ / 0-)

    only thing missing is his American flag and wooden cross.

  •  time for a SHOW OF FORCE in Ohio (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:42:20 PM PST

  •  What is being done in Ohio to combat this? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, grrr

    I want to get involved.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:43:01 PM PST

    •  I dont know yet. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grrr, concernedamerican

      Issue 2 went down to defeat as I expected. It is still the week of the election and we don't even have official counts yet, or have had time to analyze what we need to do next. The horrors in our statehouse are wasting no time though. I hear that Mourdock and Akin's defeats taught them nothing, and that they plan to take up defunding Planned Parenthood and a legislative Personhood Bill (since the amendment drive failed here) in the lame duck session. They are going to be dealing  with some angry, fire-up women going in to 2014, and women are the key to Democrats winning. Their dissing is why the Democrats lost here in 2010.

      Your asses are on the line, Ohio ’pubbies.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:09:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think there's anything to combat yet. (0+ / 0-)

      Husted is not a legislator.  Some friendly member of the statehouse would have craft legislation and bring it up for a vote.

      At which point, the repeal referendum would kick into gear.  A referendum which would have the side effect of turning a ton of Democratic voters out to the polls.

      ------RM

  •  Wonderful (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    Gerrymander districts and install a Republican President.

    What part of democracy do these bungholes not understand?

    What parts do they not believe in?

    The whole thing smells like slimy old Kochs.

    Perhaps one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:44:53 PM PST

  •  Yipes! (0+ / 0-)

    By district, the president is being elected using legislative ridings, basically.  There's a way in which it creates a pseudo-parliamentary system, because the President Romney would come with a republican house with the same geographic and demographic frame.   And suddenly state controlled gerrymandering becomes even more creepy.  The nation would become governable at the same moment it became unlivable.

    I have appreciated my time in parliamentary democracies and often wish I lived in one.  It's an interesting reminder that it might suck, too...

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:45:19 PM PST

  •  That was why we decided to have (0+ / 0-)

    senatorial elections, because it became obvious that it was too easy for local contributors (big business) to buy appointments by the governor or event the state senate to the federal senate reps.

    Under the massive subjugation of state democracy by ALEC, it will continue to be a cinch to run this country into the banana republic bastion of a once-great democracy and a safe haven for plutocrats everywhere.

    •  Well, remember that we didn't have a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NancyK

      democracy for white people while slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person in population (and therefore every white male vote counted more in slave states).  And we didn't have female suffrage until 1920.  

      Add to that how poll taxes, poll tests, intimidation and murder kept blacks from voting... not to mention Native Americans' struggles to vote... and the fact that Gore won Florida, but Bush was still installed... and I'm not sure when exactly we were a "great democracy."  1980-1996?

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:03:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gerrymandering is killing us (7+ / 0-)

    We should have not only won the presidency, but we should have won control of the house if district's were not gerrymandered.     Husted's plan extends gerrymandering's ill effects, and would kill us in the national election just like it is killing us in states under republican control.

    •  Ohio had an issue on the ballot (0+ / 0-)

      to transfer districting to a non-partisan, taking it out of the hands of the state legislature.

      I don't watch a lot of tv but I never saw a pro-issue ad explaining the whys and wherefores. The negative ads put the emphasis on costliness of a commission and that it would be made up of members without political accountability. These ads did not make it clear what the issue was actually about, what these commissioners would do.

      Of course the issue was defeated. A lot of educational outreach is needed before something like that could be approved here.

      Don't ask me nothin' about nothin'. I just might tell ya the truth -- B. Dylan

      by ponderer on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:02:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just as he intended. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare

      I will have much more to sat in a few weeks.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:10:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai

    Um.....

    Romney, who only received 206 Electoral votes under the current system, would have gained another 64 votes. Total: 270. Just what he needed to step into the winner's circle.
    Only if you ignore the other 44 syayes.

    You have to apply the system to ALL states It isn;t fair to apply it only to just enough close states to get Romney to 270. :D :D

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:45:50 PM PST

    •  True, but that's what they want it to do. (0+ / 0-)

      Since when have Republicans played fair?

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:04:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The system currently exists in only two... (0+ / 0-)

      ...states, Maine and Nebraska. I was speculating what would have happened if six other states had decided to pass such laws. I agree that this wouldn't be fair, but it would be a possibility.

      But I did not ignore the situation you're describing. I did consider if all the states and DC had such a system:

      If the system Husted and Corbett and other Republicans would like had been installed nationwide for this election, Romney would have received even more Electoral votes. Republicans won House seats in at least 233 districts, with seven not yet decided. Add in two Electoral votes from the 24 states where Romney won statewide and the total count would have been 281 to Obama's 257. Even with Democratic wins in the seven undecided districts, Obama could not have won. [Emphasis added.]

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:37:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Asdf (0+ / 0-)

        I agree that such a system would favor the GOP if all the states did it. It would, in effect, substitute geography for people. I just wanted to point out that merely using those states alone was cherry picking.

        I am with you on the issue, however. The EC makes absolutely NO sense when applied on a district level.

        Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

        by GayIthacan on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:39:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Land doesn't vote; people vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai

    I get so annoyed by the whole "wow look at all the red" analysis from the news when they show county by count.  Right, there's a lot of red land mass, because the people who can't stand other people move away from cities and make sure that they have more land to themselves, and those folks vote GOP because its a party that is always attacking somebody.  

    That's what this is, again.  

    The only EC reform that should be considered is the national popular vote winner getting all the ECs.  I'm fine with that, even though for the next few cycles we'll have a swing-state advantage.  

  •  Gerry meandered (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf Of Aquarius, anastasia p

    Since congressional seats are gerrymandered, proponents are suggesting a gerrymandered President. This approach can only be acceptable if a non partisan group is allowed to redistrict the congressional seats. End of story.

  •  Does the electoral college system make election (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai

    manipulation/fraud more difficult?

    Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

    by semiot on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:50:15 PM PST

  •  they're obvious (4+ / 0-)

    if they want a democracy, go popular vote. they still want a structurally rigged system, they just want one that favors them, because the one we've used for hundreds of years doesn't favor them.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:50:48 PM PST

  •  Okay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, Dream It Real

    Out  of all the Presidential elections we've had so far....only FOUR had winners that did not get the popular vote.
    Three were in the 1800s (1823, 1876, 1888).  The other was the debacle of 2000, which had flaws not relating to the Electoral college, but the dishonest tactics of the RW.

    So while the Electoral college might be an anachronism, it does seem to work just fine.  As long as nobody (I'm looking at YOU wingnuts) fucks with it.

    I'm not crazy, I've just been in a very bad mood for 40 years!

    by liberalagogo on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:51:00 PM PST

    •  80% of Americans Are Ignored (0+ / 0-)

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

      80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

      Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

       The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II.  Near misses are now frequently common.  There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.    

  •  Interstate compact? Are you kidding? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CaliSista, Dream It Real

    No, NPV would require a constitutional amendment.  The idea that states ruled by different parties would trust each other and honor their compacts when it mattered doesn't make sense to me.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:52:51 PM PST

    •  Interstate compacts are honored all the time... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ConfusedSkyes

      ...in fact. As noted on the NPV site:

      Compacts are agreements between two or more states that bind them to the compacts' provisions, just as a contract binds two or more parties in a business deal. As such, compacts are subject to the substantive principles of contract law and are protected by the constitutional prohibition against laws that impair the obligations of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10).

      That means that compacting states are bound to observe the terms of their agreements, even if those terms are inconsistent with other state laws. In short, compacts between states are somewhat like treaties between nations. Compacts have the force and effect of statutory law (whether enacted by statute or not) and they take precedence over conflicting state laws, regardless of when those laws are enacted.

      However, unlike treaties, compacts are not dependent solely upon the good will of the parties. Once enacted, compacts may not be unilaterally renounced by a member state, except as provided by the compacts themselves. Moreover, Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:31:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How can we win with a minority of the votes? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf Of Aquarius, Egalitare, Zinman, wbr

    Gerrymander, block early voting, force Democrats to stand in long lines, voter suppression...when all else fails, change the rules.  Republicans have no shame about trying to take and keep power despite the will of the majority.

    See you in Heaven if you make the list. R.E.M.

    by Akronborn on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:53:34 PM PST

  •  This drives me into split personality...... (0+ / 0-)

    (a too short distance as it is).  ;}

    It would be a step closer to direct democracy, then i look at the "by county" results in Illinois, not good.

    When redistricting is done by an algorithm that only considers geography and population density, maybe.

  •  Funny how Repubs dropped the popular vote argument (0+ / 0-)

    Now that it is obvious Obama won the national vote by more than a full percentage point instead of trailing, it is hilarious to see how quickly the FOX NEWS idiots have shut up about the popular vote being an indicator that Obama did not have a mandate. What a bunch of two faced idiots.

  •  We've always been a republic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Zinman

    Just not a democratic republic. States, state-based congressional districts, the senate, gerrymandering, the electoral college. None of these are democratic.

    If we're going to be a true democratic republic, we're going to have to do away with all of these someday. Seriously. They're ALL anachronisms.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PST

  •  Enshrining Gerrymandering for Good (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans have been masters of putting their thumb on the election scales and in no area so much as gerrymandering congressional and state legislative districts. (The Senate, of course, is already gerrymandered, permanently, with small states dominating the place.)

    One only has to look at the Republican controlled House and the fact that the national vote for Democratic candidates for Congress exceeded that for Republicans to understand the undemocratic power Republicans wield. Democrats need to push hard for a national popular vote initiative or the Republicans will hold on to power until bodily thrown out.

  •  A California Repub group was gathering (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf Of Aquarius

    signatures a couple years ago to get a ballot proposition to split EV's in CA.
    Happily that effort fizzled due to lack of funds.

    But considering how easy it is for wealthy donors to get propositions on the ballot here in California, I wouldn't be shocked if an attempt is made again in the future, funded by some Koch-type rich guy.

    Of course that doesn't mean that it would pass. We had several propositions on this year's ballot mainly sponsored by billionaires, and most if not all were defeated on Tuesday.

    •  just for fun, (0+ / 0-)

      I looked up the funding for the ten propositions on the California ballot last Tuesday, using the terrific information conveniently gathered on: http://ballotpedia.org/...

      And it seems that 6 were principally funded, or at least gotten off the ground, by wealthy individuals.
      Two passed (35, 39), Four were defeated (31, 32, 33, 38).
      That's a .333 batting average.

  •  Let's bury this idea for the current decade. (4+ / 0-)

    Nate Silver says that in 2012, Romney would have had to win the popular vote by 3 points in order to win in the E.C. because Democratic support is better distributed in the Electoral College than the GOP's. So the GOP has a built-in advantage in the House due to gerrymandering and the Dem's have an advantage in the College. Unfairness both ways sort of cancels out. Let's not give up our advantage unless the GOP surrenders theirs.  

  •  As a resident of Illinois (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheChocolateChips

    I rather resent that my state (and a whole smattering of Blue states) has volunteered to hand over my presidential electoral votes to a republican, without a single Red state reciprocating. The republicans must be loving this new "progressive" idea.

    As for Ohio, I didn't know that Husted had the power to enact a statute. I don't think they can pull that one off. We heard that threat during the last cycle, but individual congressmen didn't want to risk having resources of presidential magnitude being targeted into their districts. Not gonna happen.

  •  unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

    all the more reason we need to throw out the whole electoral college system and go with a popular vote election.

  •  Which states are most likely to sign on that (0+ / 0-)

    haven't already signed on?

  •  also: this really shows (0+ / 0-)

    how ridiculous these gerrymandered districts are... it's so frustrating that they get away with all of this anti-democratic (small d) nonsense.

  •  National popular vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    is far better and easily more democratic.

    The only way a congressional district route could be acceptable is if non-partisan drawing of districts was locked in with it. Even then there would be an advantage for rural states and therefore for Republicans but it wouldn't be as bad as going by congressional districts when district drawing is a rigged game through gerrymandering.

    If the projected trends hold up we'll have had more votes cast for Democratic congressional candidates then for Republican ones but through the crime of gerrymandering we have a Republican controlled House of Representatives. Only in trade for eliminating gerrymandering would I even consider basing the Presidential vote on congressional districts.

    Minority rule is NOT the way to go.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:16:59 PM PST

  •  DGA (0+ / 0-)

    http://democraticgovernors.org/
    to find out who is running in 2014.

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:23:13 PM PST

  •  There has to be something done uniformly (0+ / 0-)

    regarding all of these voting techniques.  People have gotten so stupid..Citizens United for example.. Let's electricute a corporation or have it give birth and then we will talk people.  they literally think corporations are personhood.  

    The only thing I can think of is to eliminate the electoral college which seems fair to me and 50 states turn out to vote and only a few matter.  This is not fair to the majority of Americans.   One vote..one person...Winner take all.  Many do not vote because they feel their vote does not count and it doesn't.  We need a lot of election reform because until we rid ourselves of stupid and racists...and greedy which we never will completely then, this will continue.  MB I know what I am about to say is probably wrong but IMO there needs to be an example made of someone for all this suppression.  I don't know whether it is to publicly humiliate and exile them or jail them for sedition regarding the constituion.
    There would not be but one or two example of people including haters like Rush and they would accept their losses like grown people and remember the people who died for the vote.  Examples .....I thought what Trump said in a time of war was Treason.  Calling for a revolution.  Maybe we should start with him.  

    Back in WWII they shot a soldier ...Private Slovik for desertion...They did it as an example.  They have not done it since, but there were no deserters for a very long time.  I personally think that was wrong but something has to be done when people hold their hands up and swear to uphold the constitution and then trash it.  Either we have laws and enforceable laws or we don't.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:25:31 PM PST

  •  The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (0+ / 0-)

    is the alternative and something that we should be pushing for in larger Democratic states.  

    This is a law passed at the state level mandating that the electoral votes of the states where it has been enacted would automatically be given to the national popular vote winner.  It needs the states passing it to add up to 270 for it to go into effect.

  •  you need a constituency to pass that kind of crap (0+ / 0-)

    and i'll bet that constituency will largely consist of talk radio listeners who have no free alternatives for politics and current events while driving or working.

    and the local ohio talkers will get regular talking points, topics, and guests from the think tanks trying to pass it while progressives in ohio will have no idea why it's got so much 'popular' support and so many supportive letters to the editor. and they won't know that detractors working for local media will be getting hate mail.

    while "home of the ohio state buckeyes!" plays to millions during that well coordinated radio campaign - at least six Ohio State buckeye stations are limbaugh stations endorsed by the ohio state buckeyes. all those stations will be doing pro husted crap 22/7.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:38:00 PM PST

  •  Not likely in Ohio (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BleacherBum153

    Unlike Pennsylvania, it's not a Dem leaning state - it is a pure swing state. When it doesn't go with the national trend, it goes Repub (Kennedy 60, FDR twice).

    The other reasons - the loss of TV and other campaign revenue, the lack of interest in the state's issues that benefit its people and its politicians, the possible increased outside interest in more swing CDs that have Repub congressmen which they fear - will enter into the rejection.

    But the biggest is that in a really close election, it is more likely to hurt Repubs than Dems.

    My guess also is that John Boehner - who is from Ohio - would frown on this.

  •  I'm kind of liking the Electoral College right now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice

    After Repubs gerrymandered PA., resulting in the ridiculous 7th congressional district, they floated the idea of going with EV by district then abruptly dropped it. I've never understood why, although I personally visited the PA. Senate majority leader's office to register my alarm.
    In 2008 PA. was a battleground state with lots of visits from the candidates and that was fun.  This year knowing the state was safe for Obama, I enjoyed not being drowned in negative TV ads, traffic jams and hellabaloo.
    Wouldn't going by the popular vote mean candidates would have to campaign in so many more places costing even more money?

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please -- Mark Twain

    by OnePingOnly on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:45:05 PM PST

  •  Electoral Voting by District (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, Boundegar

    is really all about them trying to make Nate Silver's head explode, isn't it.

  •  Hustead should never be allowed to win an election (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes

    for anything ever again.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:07:32 PM PST

  •  Popular votes empowers everyone not just small (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes

    They say that popular vote would get populous places more attention. How is that worse than a few swing states get all the attention?

    Besides arent small states represented by their congressmen and senators anyway who can use their leverage as deciding votes in a situation of slim majorities to make their demands heard?

  •  I have absolutely no doubt (0+ / 0-)

    were it left up to the Right, the only people who could vote would be (ta da!) the Right.

    The only reason why Florida was inconsequential was because WE MADE FLORIDA INCONSEQUENTIAL.

    The only reason why Ohio couldn't bust our chops was because, our candidate out maneuvered that horseshit. This time.

    We should press our advantage.

    If not now, when?

  •  husted & the darth vader (0+ / 0-)

    gop will stop at nothing in keeping non whites from having an influence on americas elections, the gop has become the kkk of american politics and america must put a stake through the heart of this fascist party.

  •  Legislators control Congressional districts. (0+ / 0-)

    Dividing up the Electoral College by the easily-gerrymandered, every-10-years redistribution of district lines is a horrible idea which would lock state legislatures' partisan alignments into the Presidential contest.

    The national popular vote is a much plainer, more sensible idea.  (While I'm at it I'd favor an instant runoff system so that third-party candidates can have more of a say, but that's further down the line.)

  •  The National Popular Vote Plan Will NEVER Happen. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice

    Here is a legal explanation, and here is a political explanation why it won't. Flatulating about a democracy-improvement method which could never be implemented without further dividing the country, and which (if implemented) would never survive a constitutional challenge is an exercise in stupidity and futility.

    Husted's unserious proposal is meant to distract from his recent criminal actions and attempts, and it seems to have worked on some of us. Progressives who actually are reality-based should be concentrating on what is in the software patches that Husted was prevented from using on the transmission of 80% of Ohio's votes.

    Without proposing any conspiracy theory whatsoever, and without any need to do so, I strongly submit that both the owner and the chief moderator of the largest progressive blog on the planet would better serve our common goals by asking the following question on this blog at least once a week, until both they and we get an answer.

    WHAT IS IN THOSE UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE PATCHES WHICH A FEDERAL JUDGE WOULDN'T LET HUSTED USE?
    Usefully, that quasi-rhetorical question could be coupled with semi-monthly explanations of paper-and-pencil voting. Those history lessons could alternate with sociological explanations of why America's desire for instant results by hidden means is a mortal danger to the tree of liberty.

    I became active in Cleveland and Ohio politics 54 years ago, and kept my hand in even during my 2 decades in NYC. I am always engaged locally. Every year is an election year, but I'm also engaged locally on a daily basis politically, especially on city issues. We actively engaged GOTV Ohioans didn't need a Californian from Illinois to tell us here that our victory margin would be too big to steal, because we had worked to make damned SURE that 2004 wouldn't happen in 2012.

    We were prepared for all contingencies. The election-day court challenge to unauthorized and secret software patches (including which political party would challenge and what their lawyers would argue) didn't happen by accident or as a mere reaction. In minority communities we had GOTV efforts that added to the wonderful OFA machine's work, without undercutting it and without illegally coordinating with it.

    We were successful, because (unlike 2004) we expected GOP conspiracies. We know, from over a century of bitter experience in Ohio, that the one sure way the GOP gets and keeps Ohio is to steal it, and for the past 8 years we assume they'll always try that first.

    But we're only one state, only seventh largest. We need the rest of the nation to stay focused on present day problems with the current electoral system. The last thing we all need nationally is for voters of the largest state to dismiss all our real-world problems with the system so they can pursue a goal of becoming more relevant in the election of the POTUS. Be satisfied with the fact that California has preemptive veto power over the choice of a Democratic nominee.

    Still, if the East and West coast voters are hell-bent on relieving Ohio of some of those political ads, by all means come up with a reality-based solution to the Electoral College. The NPVP is not legally possible with anything less than a Constitutional Amendment, not sociologically possible short of 10 years and massive re-education of the entire nation, not politically possible under our present form of government.

    Advocating for the NPVP is not any more real than pretending a federation of constitutional republics is a pure town hall democracy. It is an act of political masturbation at a time when there aren't enough hours in the day to address present-day reality-based issues.

    Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

    by davidincleveland on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:06:17 PM PST

  •  Obama won Ohio. (0+ / 0-)

    And Sherrod Brown was reelected.  And Cincinnati went strongly for both of them.  So why are both of our representatives Republican?

    We're gerrymandered out of representation.  Even though my city is blue, my district is so red that nobody on Kos bothered talking about the Democratic challenger.  I searched.

    And that is why the Husted plan is a terrible plan for America.  If hands the Presidency to whichever party controls the gerrymander.  And in most states, that's the Republicans.

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 10:24:54 PM PST

  •  The minority GOP would yet strangle us all (0+ / 0-)

    This is the true battle of our time.  Will the minority party which the GOP has been truly from the 1980s onward (the 2000 election was blatantly stolen; the 2004 election was tilted after shenanigans in Ohio) become the party which through ridiculous gerrymandering and equally ridiculous congressional district realignment become for the rest of us a stranglehold on future progress, rather like a conservative elite lording it over the masses?

    This is the one element of the genius at winning national presidential election that I have never understood about the Obama campaign team.  It has been mentioned that President Obama is the first Democratic President since FDR to be twice elected with popular vote majorities.  Yet for some strange reason, that team cannot seem to be as brilliantly effective on down ticket candidates and issues.  FDR's 1932 election was truly transformative--for many decades afterwards, the GOP was relegated to very second status, at all levels down to community aldermen.  Indeed, with the exception of a brief flirt with a GOP Congress past World War II and briefly into the Eisenhower years, the Democrats had the plurality of the Congress all the way up to the rise of Newt Gingrich, who came to power in 1995.

    We know what the GOP thugs are up to.  The neo-fascists like Governors Walker, Kasich and Scott want to re-apportion their states, not just through gerrymandering, but through stress of those very unrepresentative congressional districts, so that henceforth the popular will no longer matters.  They take Mitt Romney one step higher--they believe that they, now clearly the minority, have some sort of right by their self-described designation of a "superior class" (neo-Nazis, anyone?) to lord it over the "inferior" majority for all the foreseeable future.

    This is an ongoing war for the soul of our country.  I pray that the genius team behind the election and reelection of President Obama begins the process immediately of targeting these neo-fascists with their nefarious plans for national take-over.  The plans of the Radical Right are now only in abeyance.  They must be thwarted now so that future will of the majority can yet reign democratically, unfettered and truly free.

  •  the less we discuss this, the better (0+ / 0-)

    If they cannot win elections due to demographics, they will change the rules - either or both of voter ID/ suppression and now this.  Don't give them any ideas.  Let it rest.  [PA GOP considered this months ago but decided they could carry PA instead.  If PA wants to make this change, there is nothing the Dems can do to stop it since they control all branches here.]

  •  Criminal acts (0+ / 0-)

    Changes to a system to make it more balanced and a fair representation of the vote is good. But changes just to dilute the voters intent nationally is criminal.

    Not Unethical, not immoral. Just plain criminal.

    Any change to the electoral college must be managed at the national level, screw the states.

    We need a federal level change to our voter laws. Restrictions that will eliminate the faintest possibility of voter suppression in the next election.
    - Elimination of Secretary of States that are political in nature.
    - Standard hours required for voting early which must be available in all areas.
    - No more last minute changes to the process just before the General Election.

    This is our election. Not the states. And not the party's. We as a nation need our General Election standardized across all states. And if the Gov or Secretary of State tries to fuck it up then they get jailed. Plain and simple.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 04:24:27 AM PST

  •  Dangerous. It would make gerrymandering (0+ / 0-)

    all the more important and make House elections divisible by 10 more important that any other election.  Which by the way the 2020 election is crucial.

  •  big IF (0+ / 0-)

    IF the congressional redistricting itself was not so susceptible to partisan shenanigans, and

    IF the ratio of U.S. House Member to constituent was set to some more workable ratio (maybe not the ratio of 1:40,000, but surely not locked in at 435 as it has been since 1911 that has the typical Congressman trying to serve over 500,000 people), and

    IF this would be done for ALL states and not just for those seeking this or that political advantage of the moment.

    Then I would support the idea.  But what this hack is doing in Ohio is hackery.

  •  Why is this man not in custody? nt (0+ / 0-)

    Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

    by textus on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:47:07 AM PST

  •  It's amazing how little they trust Democracy (0+ / 0-)

    The big electoral reform is to make the Electoral College less representative of the will of the people?

    Another good time to note that Democrats won a majority of the vote for the House of Representatives this year. But of course we have a 30+ seat gap in representation thanks to redistricting by GOP-controlled legislatures, themselves beneficiaries in most cases of skewed districting to preserve a minority rule.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 06:17:34 AM PST

  •  When electoral structure changes, campaigning does (0+ / 0-)

    too.

    The whole political process will change to adapt to any changes in the electoral structure, whether we switch to a popular vote tally or tweak how EVs are determined in states.  Campaigns will adapt to these changes.  Therefore, we really can't say we know that Romney would have pulled off 270 EVs under the scenario presented in this post.

    Also consider the possibility that other states more favorable to Romney in the Electoral College, let's say Kentucky, adopted the same EV split approach.  Obama would have likely won 2 EVs from Kentucky!

    Also, considering how purple North Carolina now is, Romney would clearly not have won all its EVs under the scenario presented here.

    So, bottom line, let's not assume that tables get turned with changes to the electoral system.  Things may well just end up resettling into nearly the same results.

  •  also, suppress the vote (0+ / 0-)

    Federal Judge on Ohio's Ballot Order: 'Democracy Dies in the Dark'

    http://www.theatlantic.com/...

    "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." -- Mandela

    by agoldnyc on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 02:32:36 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site