Skip to main content

No Vote
Voter suppression didn't win the presidential race for Mitt Romney, so now Republicans are trying to find another way to steal the next election and make Democratic votes count less—change state laws so electoral votes are divided proportionally, by congressional district. Since they've managed to gerrymander House districts to the point that they control that chamber despite having substantially lost the popular vote, they know they can regain the White House that way.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney'sElectoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.

"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself. [...]

Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney's 60.9 million and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It's unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.

Republican governors and legislators in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan are considering this proposal to nullify the majority vote in their states. In Pennsylvania, where Gov.Tom Corbett endorsed a similar effort last year, Republican leadership is pushing the idea, so chances are good they'll try it again.

Since this is such a blatant election rigging system, far more obvious than some voter suppression schemes like requiring photo identification, the backlash against it could be even stronger than what we saw in the last election over suppression schemes. So Republican governors in blue states, many up for reelection in 2014, take a big risk. They're still elected by popular vote, not proportional. Planning to just obliterate the majority of votes in the next presidential election could end up biting them in the ass.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:02 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Elect the President by Popular Vote (4+ / 0-)

    At which point, the whole thing becomes moot.

    The Electoral College is an anachronism and should be done away with altogether.

    The Meek Shall Inherit NOTHING -- Frank Zappa

    by LickBush on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:07:48 AM PST

    •  Wyoming, Delaware, Rhode Island (0+ / 0-)

      They all disagree with you.

      •  Why (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        According to Fish, cybersaur

        Because the current system showers them with attention?

        •  Yeah, this argument is stupid (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          apimomfan2, VirginiaBlue, Womantrust

          I wish the media would continue to enlighten the citizens that even though the House is controlled by Republicans after the last election there were more votes cast for Democrats in House races than were cast for Republicans.

          The lengths that Republicans are willing to go to get elected is ridiculous and I don't believe most Americans (even a large number of registered Republicans) think that rigging elections is a good idea.

          •  Today on MSNBC (0+ / 0-)

            I forgot what show it was on, I think Craig Melvin was hosting, or it might have been Meet The Press. Anyway, Joe Scarborough actually pointed that out. Not like Fox' hosts are going to aknowledge it though.

            Republicans have long given up on actually winning. The corruption of the GOP in every area is amazing.

            I'm fine with the current electoral college system seeing as how the GOP has really fucked themselves in the last 2 election. And Bush barely won both of his. (Not to mention states like Texas and Arizona sure to go blue in at least 16 years, hopefully sooner). I would prefer a popular vote, then at least the GOP would have to resort to the tried-and-failed voter supression tactics.

            A normal person wonders, "How can I improve myself?"

            Republicans wake up in the morning and say,"Fuck it, how can we cheat this cycle?"

            It just shows that they know they can't win honestly, and thankfully they're only going to fail harder in the long run as every day goes by that they're not willing to live in the real world. I just hope they don't do too much damage to the country on their way to imminent failure.

  •  bfr freak out, should look @ state constitutions (4+ / 0-)

    yes repubs are dicks and cheaters

    yes this isnt good

    BUT it really isnt as simple as being made out, many states would require state constitutional changes to implement and that isnt so easy and requires huge hurdles to get over which would make many states impossible to do in

    •  Please expand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DEMonrat ankle biter

      Rachel Maddow is freaking me out.

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:39:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  just that we need to look at each individual state (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xsonogall, misslegalbeagle

        and their constitutions

        some require 2/3 votes in their legislatures and then popular referendum vote to implement such a change due to state constitutional changes

        not all states

        evey state constitution is different thus we need to look at each state and figure out which specific states repubs could easily implement and battle it out in those states while not freaking out 2016 is already stole via such shenanigans thanx to many other states constitutions limiting such a change via huge hurdles = amending constitutions

  •  If those R governors in blue states (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    are dumb enough to try it may it bite them the in ass really hard! :-)

  •  Thanks for linking to Yahoo! (5+ / 0-)

    I was talking about this at the water cooler and my coworker said I read too much Daily Kos - if it's not in the MSM or on Jon Stewart it must not be true, right?!
    While everyone screams debt ceiling over here, Republicans are rigging 2016 over there.

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:20:05 AM PST

  •  The electoral college (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is not and never has been popular democracy. It was not intended to be. As long as it exist political game playing with the presidential election will continue. The national popular vote is the only reasonable basis for electing a president.

  •  well, do we expect them to be doing anything... (0+ / 0-)

    ... different?

    what a nice bunch of patriotic lily white fellas

    People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think. -George Carlin

    by downtownLALife on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:25:27 AM PST

  •  legal, ethical and moral are so different (0+ / 0-)

    and this really points up the issue

    legal?  probably - especially if it get to the current SCOTUS for a final decision

    ethical / moral?  I don't think so.

    This is a huge problem with the GOP today.  If it's legal, they call it ethical.  

    And Obama wants to reach common ground with them?

    Thugs & bullies.

  •  Is this not a potential civil rights issue? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Establishing a method to guarantee that the looser in the popular vote nevertheless wins the election is more than just disreputable.  It may be a violation of fundamental civil rights.  Aren't many of the states contemplating this manoever on the list of those to have any changes to their voting procedures reviewed by the federal government because of past civil rights voilations?  The fact that the R's are even comtemplating this indicates that they truly have their backs to the wall.

    Bene Scriptum, Bene Intellectum.

    by T C Gibian on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 08:09:37 AM PST

  •  Someone elected this way risks losing control (0+ / 0-)

    When people learn how much skewing was going on, at some point it would seem people react against the party or candidate connected with such a system.

    And the more people understand the extent the GOP will go to win, the GOP is over as a moral voice on any issue.

    cheerleaders need not apply.

    by kravitz on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 08:25:11 AM PST

  •  I'd say it's almost certain they'll do this. (0+ / 0-)

    Since Republicans won't change they're politics to adapt to changing demographics, this is the only way they'll have even a long shot at the White House in 2016. A lot of these Republican governors are likely to lose in 2014 anyway so I fear that won't be a deterrent. And without a Democratic sweep in states like PA, the damage will be done and the chances of continuing a slow push in the right left direction over the next decade will be seriously diminished if this happens.

    Let's not let 2014 be anything like 2010. Republicans only win when we stay home!

    by Tim D M on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 08:57:24 AM PST

  •  Glad to See this diary (0+ / 0-)

    Maddow has been covering this issue and ringing the alarm...As with the voter suppression tactics (which seemed to go unnoticed for too long) this is yet another example of the lengths that the GOP is willing to employ to gain power...(as opposed to actually looking at their ridiculous positions on any number of issues).

    I hope that citizens in the affected states are paying attention and looking beyond the traditional MSM (which isn't covering the topic at all as they fall over themselves to discuss the implications of a possibly fake dead girlfriend of some college football player or some other such nonsense)...

  •  Can't we just give them a 30-EV headstart? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SuetheRedWA, Matt Z

    You know, like I did for my kids in foot-races when they were so much less mature than I, just to make it interesting ...

    Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 12:49:07 PM PST

  •  shorter Republican platform (6+ / 0-)

    Control the presidency with a minority of the votes.

    That needs to be repeated over and over and over again -- the Republican Party is now explicitly opposed to democracy.

  •  How about a movement to get everyone (0+ / 0-)

    photo I.D.s? At least we can nullify that ploy.

  •  Those SOB's will never stop (6+ / 0-)

    They are driven and they are without honor.  As an older American who served to protect our Constitution and our democracy, I am aghast at the actions of the Republican party since President Obama's election.  Actually some of the horror began at the 2000 election here in Florida.  Remember the thugs who invaded Broward/Palm Beach Counties and later stole the election?  It has been a disgraceful period in our nation's history.

  •  Saw this on FB today... (8+ / 0-)
    "If you support a party that believes it should be easier to buy an automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine  than it is to vote... you're part of the problem."
    Sums it up perfectly I think.

    Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less. E.J. Dionne

    by blueyescryinintherain on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 12:57:16 PM PST

  •  The nationwide popular vote is meaningless. (0+ / 0-)
    they've managed to gerrymander House districts to the point that they control that chamber despite having substantially lost the popular vote

    The growth of this crybaby meme is starting to get old.

    We have an electoral college and Congressional Districts are apportioned proportional to population as determined by the Census.   Red states made big gains in the last census.  Blue states lost seats.  

    It's not all about gerrymandering, either, although if that's your complaint, then we need to win more legislative races.  Here, in NJ, the last legislative apportionment favored the Democrats, big time.  We lost the Congressional apportionment, however, because the plan submitted by the Democrats was, to be blunt, less reasonable than that of the Republicans, and a neutral appointed by both parties had to pick one.  

    Either way, gerrymandering is the rule, rather than the exception, for both parties. When the parties meet to redistrict, they create safe districts for the good old boys club and throw their least favorite members into "sudden death" races in a competitive district, designed to make the "last loser" race reasonably fair.  

    Enough with the "they only won because they cheated on gerrymandering" meme. Win some legislative races if you want to be the party with the edge, and have more kids.    

    Last, Red State Republicans wanting to apportion electoral votes by Congressional District is no worse than Blue State Democrats pushing for legislation requiring their own states to cast their electoral votes in accord with the national popular vote.  

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 12:59:58 PM PST

    •  Redistricting can be done impartially (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoreLies, stevemb, Shockwave

      A lot of countries manage it with their civil service.

    •  This can be an issue to win back some leges (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hayden, Hayate Yagami

      Feeling like you are getting screwed can be a potent motivator.  If governors up in 2014 go through with this, the connection won't be hard to make for their Democratic challengers.  If the backlash is big enough, victory at the top make become inevitable and depress Republican turnout.

      Gerrymandering is one thing.  Openly plotting to devise a system that would purposefully grant victory to a losing candidate is another.  The first nibbles at the edge of one man one vote, the second severs the link completely.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:12:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But only if (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        people are willing to vote on this issue. If voters think it's overreach but still vote for guns or anti abortion, we still lose.

        •  I think it would motivate the base (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          More than anything.  Just look at turnout in states that were trying to change voter ID laws, it seems like people got pretty pissed.  I don't think it would be a very good motivator for the other side, I can't think that openly advocating stealing elections will go down well with all of the GOP's voters.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:36:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Michigan is gerrymandered to hell, Republicans did it, and it is total bullshit.

    •  Unprecedented (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Democrats got over a million more votes for the House, but didn't get the majority.  This has never happened, and the only other time a party didn't win control of the House when they had a plurality was in 1996 (again Rs keeping control).  It does have something to do with the movement of House seats, but much more to do with gerrymandering--Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio all are great examples.  Republicans were at absolute high water after the 2010 election and it happened to be the time to redistrict and they pressed their advantage.  Good for them, bad for the country.  

      I say bad for the country because we get lousy lawmakers when we have so many safe seats.  What is right for the country is to draw maps that are "fair" and most of the time in most states there isn't a trifecta to ram through completely uncompetitive maps, but in 2011 there were Republican trifectas in the states listed above (not NC, but the D governor couldn't veto the map).  Drawing of the maps needs to go to impartial or bipartisan hands, because now the gerrymanders are more effective.

  •  Pre-requisite for Republicans: gag reflex missing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:01:29 PM PST

  •  I just heard about this on a local news broadcast. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Our governor here in Michigan says he thinks its a good idea.  He would!  If this had been in effect during the last election Romney would have won 9 of Michigan's 16 electoral votes despite losing the state popular vote by several percentage points.  Those who are afraid of government taking their guns should be more afraid of it coming after their vote!

  •  Of course they won't propose this in red states (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, slothlax

    like Texas, where the blue team might pick up a few electoral college votes.

  •  And if these traitors do try this, watch them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    attach appropriations to the bills to make them unrepealable.

    So we won't have recourse to use the people's veto.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:09:50 PM PST

  •  I don't think any state will try to do this... (4+ / 0-)

    Because I think they lose the MSM in their states if they try as the media in these states love the fact that they are swing states because it brings tens of millions in ad spending every cycle.  If Michigan or Ohio or Pa or whomever did this, they'd instantly become non-players in Presidential politics because 2 EV's would be up for grabs.

    Also it would be a HUGE over-reach and the WH, Senate and DOJ would launch immediate challenge that would likely then challenge the who gerrymandering of seats.  States have the right to their own state legislature, but federal law should trump state law in writing up federal house districts.  

    I mean could the make it any more obvious that they're being so outspoken about this being a bald-faced power grab?  Why not push this in Texas?  They have complete control of state legislature and Gov there?  If this is a "fairness" issue - why not do it in red controlled states as well?

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:11:24 PM PST

  •  If the big blue states are as dumb as CA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    we will be screwed.CA Democrats Are Idiots

    If enough blue states do this & none of the red states, we will never win another presidential election! We need to undo this in CA while we still can.

    Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

    by chuck utzman on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:12:34 PM PST

  •  Joan makes a great point, this could really end (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, slothlax

    up biting the GOP blue state politicians in the ass. Talk about a GOTV motivation in 2014!

    Additionally, could you imagine what it would be like for a GOP president in 2016 who lost the popular vote by several million but ended up winning a rigged election. Good luck with that!

  •  Well, Joan, you have just made me physcially ill. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beav, VirginiaBlue, apimomfan2

    These people ( and I use the term loosely) are beyond reprehensible.  There is nothing and I mean nothing! they will not attempt to do to take over this country lock, stock and barrel.  They for sure are single-minded and they become more mean-spirited by the hour.
    Thank the gods I spent most of my life when this was a true republic, but I fear for my kids and grandkids.  Maybe they will figure it all out and immigrate to some country where democracy is flourishing.

    If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything - unknown

    by incognita on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:16:05 PM PST

  •  Ah, yes. Just when you think they can't be any (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    more shameful--voilà--a whole new sub basement. Keep it up,

            G.   guns.        
            O.  over
            P.   people

    or is it

              G.   Gerrymandering
              O.   Odius but official
              P.    Policy over people

    Losers by any other name will smell as sweet.

    "In politics stupidity is not a handicap." Napoleon Bonaparte

    by citylights on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:20:47 PM PST

  •  This is yet another punch in the face (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, apimomfan2

    from a system that was rotten from the start. If we can't abolish the useless Electoral College, at the very least there have to be national mandatory standards on how the votes are counted. If they want to make it by congressional district nationwide, fine. But letting states use it to play a selective numbers game for purely partisan reasons is an insult to whatever is left of American democracy. Just the fact that the proposal is treated with anything beyond contempt and derision says more than we want to hear about the state of our republic.

  •  Spamming this thing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Want to make a contribution toward preventing this sort of horse shit?


    I cannot think of a more direct way to fight this crap. Where else do they even bring it up?

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:27:48 PM PST

  •  This is serious shit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, apimomfan2

    While everyone has been focused on the fiscal cliff/debt ceiling etc, these Republican governors in blue mid-western states have been planning to rig the Electoral College so that there is no way in hell that a Democrat can possibly be elected president again.

    Where are the Dems on this?

    Why aren't they raising hell about it in the media?

    You'd think they'd be up in arms about it, seeing as how Republicans are trying to 'legislate' them out of existence!

    "I'm so happy 'cause today I found my friends, they're in my head. Light my candles, in a daze 'cause I found god." - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:32:58 PM PST

  •  As I've said elsewhere, even if implemented this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, Notreadytobenice, slothlax

    would probably not be disisive. Diarist properly, I think, excludes (for various reasons) Va., NC. Fla., and Ohio. The three left (Pa., Michigan, and Wisc.) have only 48 electoral votes. By following their corrupt scheme Republicans would be denied the chance to take these marginally competitive states AND guarantee democrats a portion, I'm guessing around 20 or so evs.

    Also, I have doubts about Corbett being able to push it through pa. against traditional type Pa. conservatism in the state leg., esp. with time and energy being devoted to trying to screw workers in the lucrative state lottery and State Store Syetem by privatising them. His reelection is looking probamatic already. If pa. out possible gain is perhaps 10-15 evs. And that ignores outrage by general voters and democrats concentrating on individual districts (3+ Pa. GOP districts could be vulnerable) and concentraing on putting Georgia, Arizona, and Arkansas (if Hillary runs) in play.

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:38:03 PM PST

    •  Wouldn't Ga, Ar, Ark just not make the change? (0+ / 0-)

      But if what you say is true, it make me happy.

      •  What I meant was Ga., Ar., Ark. would be looked to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Notreadytobenice, slothlax

        by Democrats as a place to devote time and energy to put into play if Pa., Michigan, and Wisc., were decided on by congressional district and therefore would get far less time and money. Expand the playing field as GOPers try to contract it elsewhere.

        "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

        by TofG on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:56:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is an interesting take (0+ / 0-)

          The Republicans would essentially be conceding a lot of EC votes as well, as you point out.  It would take WI MI OH PH VA and FL to put enough EC votes into play.  Even with those states, there are enough safe Democratic districts, plus 2 EC votes for each statewide victory, to put Obama over 265.  And that doesn't take into account the many Republican seats that were won with less than 60%, while almost all the Democrats who won in these states were north (usually well north) of that number.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:43:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Only in purple/blue states (0+ / 0-)

            The idea would be for the Republicans to change the rules in states where they don't win the Presidential, but currently control the trifecta--Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania haven't gone to a Republican in more than 20 years, but all would give more EVs to the Republican than Democrats is allocation was by Congressional District.  Add in Virginia, Florida and Ohio (states that Obama won twice), and there are a lot of electoral votes lost.  I don't know of a single state controlled by Democrats that is purple or red.  

            •  Um, I get that (0+ / 0-)

              My whole comment was about what would happen if the six states you mention adopted this system.  Almost all of the House Democrats in those states won by substantial margins, so combine those seats with two votes per statewide win.  Obama would have ended up with around 265 EC votes and a number of seats where the Republican won with a modest margin.  I haven't seen Presidential vote by CD yet, I'm just going off of House results.

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:04:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  So apparently the Founding Fathers meant every (0+ / 0-)

    word they scrawled when it comes to things like the Second Amendment, but they were somehow off-base when it comes to the Electoral College. Something along the lines of "nobody could have predicted"?

    Is that pretty much how Fox will frame it?

    Rush Limbaugh: The Lead Paint of Talk Radio.

    by here4tehbeer on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:47:09 PM PST

  •  An arrow pointed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at the heart of the Republic.

  •  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. (0+ / 0-)

    While this maneuver may be "far more obvious than some voter suppression schemes...we saw in the last election..." it at least is a more "above board" effort to orchestrate victory.  If individual state voting laws permit this type of manipulation, then none of us have a legitimate gripe.  As distasteful as this is, we don't expect the Republicans to sit back and throw-in the towel while the 47% and the growing Hispanic population continues to flock towards the Democrats - do we?

    In the meantime, it's our obligation to make sure we give voters of every political stripe, especially emerging voters in red states, genuine cause to support the solid Democratic ideals espoused by Dr. King, the Kennedys and others, that have served the party and our country well for generations.

    "The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain." --George McGovern

    by Progressive Pride on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:53:31 PM PST

  •  Overreach (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, slothlax

    I think an effort to change the electoral vote allocation in Obama states controlled by Republicans is overreach, but it could cost the next presidential election to the Democratic nominee.  Taking Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio EVs away without "compensation" would have cost Obama the election this year, I believe, and could cost the 2016 nominee the presidency.  I do know that if all states had allocated EVs by congressional district, Romney would have gotten over 270 EVs.

    It certainly appears to me that it is legal for the 'pubs to pull this off.  Earlier discussion in this thread was about constitutional amendments, but I don't think most states need to amend their constitutions to change electoral vote allocation.  In some respects there is little downside for the GOP to go forward with this--these are lean Democratic states and with near certainty taking a majority of the electoral votes in these states would be a real coup for the GOP.  Democrats should certainly publicize what this plan does and how it is undemocratic and totally partisan.

    This also points out what a disaster occurred in the 2010 elections.  Not only did Democrats lose the House, they lost control of so many statehouses and state legislatures when the redistricting lines were to be drawn.  It has given the Republicans a huge advantage in state and federal legislative races almost throughout the country.    

    •  Back of the envelope (0+ / 0-)

      If you take the Democratic House seats in those states, combined with two EC votes for statewide wins, Obama would have something like 265.  Since most Dem House seats in theses states are vote sinks, I think that's a good starting point.  If this system had been in play they would have run a different strategy and I think there were enough R held seats where some extra attention could have tipped Obama.

      That said, I hate this idea and hope it dies a quick death.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:49:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Dems (0+ / 0-)

    need to use that new action committee from Obama's mail list and call for a all voters to "Clean the House and State Legislatiures once and for all" of the Republicans...before they try and steal the vote any more times. Use what they are doing as the rallying cry for the final assault on them.... the Coup de Grace...

  •  Remeber this in 2001? (0+ / 0-)

    Thousands protest Bush’s Inauguration

    Not since Richard Nixon paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue in 1973 has a presidential Inauguration drawn so many protesters — and last time, people were out to protest the Vietnam War.
    Imagine what it would be like if the GOP won the Presidency like this again.

    The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

    by Do Something on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 02:49:09 PM PST

  •  Court challenges?? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not an attorney and don't play one on teevee, however, it seems to me if any of these become law, they will immediately be challenged in court and likely would not survive.

    Help me out here.

    By the way, a couple of our Republikan legilsators in Virginia are toying with the same idea.

    •  Why wouldn't they survive? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Exactly how do you propose to court challenge (0+ / 0-)

      the Constitution?

      Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
      No state has to hold a vote.  A State can just appoint all Republican electors if they want to.  They can flip coins if they want to.  All that matters is what the Legislature of a state says is the procedure.
  •  Use the National Popular Vote Bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Maybe it's time to get behind the states that are trying to collaborate by passing the National Popular Vote Bill.  When states accounting for 270 electoral votes pass the act then we've effectively done away with the electoral college.  Currently states accounting for 132 electoral votes have passed the law (which takes effect only after states with 270+ votes have passed the act):
    CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, VT, and WA.

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 03:47:19 PM PST

    •  Are you out of your mind? Or am I missing some (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      deep plan here? In the last election, these 9 alone would have flipped 59 votes to Mitt. This appears to be a "Progressive" brainstorm--God help us!

      The way PVIC is set up, when half of the electoral vote states have signed up, the scheme goes into effect. We are now half way to disaster. Please note that it is only blue states doing this. If the blue states go this way & the red ones don't we are permanently screwed. It moves about 120 EV to the R's (assuming they can win 40% in these states.)

      Joan & Rachael have noticed the R's doing this, but missed the D's stabbing ourselves in the face with a fork. We need to undo this before it's too late.

      Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

      by chuck utzman on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:31:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I feel like Rosana Rosana Dana. "Never Mind" (0+ / 0-)

        PVIC awards the EV to the winner of the total national vote. The R's just want to do it state-by-state--big difference. My Bad.

        Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

        by chuck utzman on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 09:45:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

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

          While NPVIC deceptively would pretend that 1 Person=1 Vote, what NPVIC DOES NOT TELL YOU is that NPVIC really is just another version of the Electoral College where winner takes all. Under NPVIC, CA could switch ALL ITS VOTES to the Republican Party, even if the vast majority of Californians vote DEM. The NPVIC effectively exists as a vote-switcher for the GOP. No red states will ever agree to switch their votes to the DEMs.

          You also need to think of the NPVIC in terms of new partner legislation that is proceeding in states like PA, OH, FL, MI, WI, etc., where the GOP is aiming to actually initiate a REAL Popular Vote. The end purpose of this GOP-initiated activity is to influence HOW places like CA with its bogus NPVIC will give up ALL their votes to the GOP come election time.

          Bottom line, the GOP can get Permanent Majority with half the effort, and fewer votes than ever.

          What's the upside for the DEMs??? That's right, THERE ISN'T ONE!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site