Skip to main content

There has been a lot of talk about how the Republicans in Virginia are planning to change the way Virginia's electoral votes are cast and a lot of outrage.

In my view, this is just pissing in the wind as we say in the West.  The questions to me are what are the Republicans planning to do, will it work and what can we do to stop it are the only important questions.  The Republicans have done many things that are just awful and why we should expect them to not do that now in an attempt to keep their power is just beyond me.

So, a practical primer.

The Republicans in Virigina have introduced a bill which would do the following:

Award one electoral vote to the winner of the Presidential contest in each Congressional District.  Award the state's two at-large electoral votes based upon the candidate who won the most Congressional votes, no matter who won the popular vote in the state.  While I have seen many comments that the Republicans won't eventually do the latter, my math below shows why they must and they will.

Some Assumptions, which I think are perfectly reasonable, but let me know what you think:

1.  No state which voted for Obama last time and in which at least one of the house, senate or governor is going to enact a change like this one. In the HuffPost today the writer makes the mistaken assumption that all states will make the change proposed by Virginia.  I can assure you that the Texas legislature will not make this change as it would give 15 electoral votes to Obama that he didn't already have.  I can also assure you that California won't make this change since it would give 11 electoral votes to Romney.  Neither will any state with a split in the three offices as they will not be able to agree to such a change due to the problems above.

2.  What this means is that 45 states and the District of Columbia will not make this change.  Either they have split government or the state already voted for the candidate of the party which controls the trifecta and won the state in the Presidential race.

3.  The popular vote in these states wasn't even close, the closest being Colorado where Obama won by 5.37%.  So, I have assumed that these states will retain their winner take all status and the electoral count from these states will remain unchanged.

4.  This will leave the Democratic ticket with 226 electoral votes.  (CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IA, IL, ME, MD, MA,, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NV, OR, RI, VT, WA- 20 states plus DC)  This will leave the Republican ticket with 206 electoral votes (AL, AK, AZ, AR,GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, MO, NC, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY- 24 states the same ones that Romney got)  If the 206 looks familiar for the Republicans, that's because it was Romney's total.

5.  Because of the above, the only six states that make a difference are, guess what, the same swing states as were swing states this year, Florida, Michigan Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia with a total of 106 electoral votes.  They all have Republican senates, houses and governors.  And, they are the only ones that make a difference.

So, let's see what happens if they adopt the Virginia Plan in all six states.  I have relied on the Congressional votes as shown at DailyKos. as to what would happen at the Congressional District level if the election were held again in these six states with the Virginia Plan.

The result would be that Democrats would pick up 33 electoral votes (FL-11, MI-5, OH-4, PA-6, VA-4 and WI-3) and the remaining 73 would be won by Republicans.

This makes the electoral college 259 for Obama and 279 for Romney.  And this shows you why the Republicans must suck it up and have the two at-large electoral votes cast for the winner of the most Congressional Districts.  All six states were carried by Obama.  They have 12 at-large electoral votes.  If the two at-large votes were given to the popular vote winner in the state, the electoral college, even under the Republicans' Virginia Plan would be Obama 271 and Romney 267!  The Republicans' plan wouldn't work unless some state swung more than 5% toward the Republican ticket.  Not impossible, but improbable.

The other possible variable is that some Congressional Districts would swing from Obama to the Republican.  But in an analysis of this, there are only four congressional districts which were won by Obama where he carried less that 54% of the vote, VA-02, Fl-13, 26, 27 (with the last two being Cuban majority districts that are quickly moving into the Democratic Column.  There are a dozen districts nationwide where Obama got more than 48% of the votes in the district but still lost the district in the six states where this theft could occur.  What I'm saying here, is that it is unlikely that the Republicans could make up for the two state-wide votes by winning more Congressional Districts.  Why?  Because in the six states in question the Republicans gerrymandered the Congressional Districts so that there are a whole bunch of close, but Republican seats and there are a few Democratic vote sinks in these states.

So, what can you take from all this.  Things are not so dire as they seem.  The Republicans would have to have the Virginia Plan in all six states (including the at-large electoral votes being cast by the winner of the most Congressional Districts - a very iffy proposition) in order for their plan to work.  If they don't do the whole Monte, it does them no good, assuming candidates similar to the candidates that ran this year (and I have to think that the Republicans aren't going to get someone so "moderately' perceived as Mitt Romney.

As we all know, Republicans are long term thinkers.  It took them nearly 20 years to get to a Republican Congress and a Republican President where they could really do some damage.  As we all know, the Deomcrats aren't long term thinkers.  It's sort of each candidate for him/herself.  Only Governor ___ had the 50 state plan and not a lot of the movers and shakers believed in it.

That's why, when the Republicans in 2010, knowing that it would probably already be a good year for them targeted Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  By winning the Governerships and the legislatures in these traditionally Democratic states they were able to Gerry-mander the Congressional Districts in these 4 and two other reliably Repoublican states (Virginia and Florida) and achieve a majority in the US House even in spite of their losses in 2012 and prepare themselves for the eventuality of what has happened to their hopes on the Presidential level (Dems routinely winning by millions of votes and winning 5 of the last 6 electoral college votes - Gore carried Florida, we all know it).

This should provide some suggestions for the Democrats over the next 8 years.

1.  In the close Congressional Districts in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginai and Washington, you should be going balls to the wall to party build.  This includes recruiting good Congressional candidates and spending whatever it takes to have them win in 2014.  You can rest assured that the Republicans will be doing likewise.

2.  You need to concentrate on gubernatorial elections in these six states between now and 2022.  You must win them all.  Again, lots of money, good candidates, good work by elected candidates.  You can't afford to fuck up.

3.  You need to work on the legislatures in each of these six states and other states which might be in play for the next census (like Colorado, Nevada, NH and maybe places like AZ).  The reality is even if you have the governors of these states, the most you can hope for is a "fair" redistricting.  You will need to get the legislature and governor back in all of these states to reverse this horrible legislation.  You might pick up a few seats in redistricting with a "fair" plan, but a plan gerrymandered the Democratic way in all six of these states would probably result in a minimum of 20 seats in the US House and 20 electoral votes and will put Democrats well on their way to being a long-term majority party.  This means, yes, you need to play in state legislative races in these six states and other states where at some point in the near future the Republicans might have a chance for the trifects.  This means party building in a lot of places, and not just for two years.  This needs to be a twenty year plan, just like the Republicans was.

4.  Does anyone really believe that the Democrats will do better if they control the Presidency, Congress and the Senate.  Exhibit A would be Harry Reid and the faux filibuster reform that won't do anything.  The answer is no.  You've got to build your party brand.  Shit like the filibuster makes a difference now and for the future.  As long as people believe that neither party can get anything done, Democrats will never become a long-term majority party.  Hell, this is the reason I am still not a Democrat.  Democrats don't know how to finish.  They don't know how to stomp the opposition when its down.  They don't know how to use their power.  At least Republicans, as crazy as they are, know how to do these things.  It's time for some forceful leadership in the House and Senate which punishes people who don't tow the line.  And if Harry Reid won't do it, then its time for someone else.

5.  Take a lesson from Colorado Democrats.  They may not be the most liberal, but they know how to win elections.  They know how to punish people who don't toe the line (term limits helps too).  They know how to get shit done, even stuff I never thought they'd have the stomach for like the DREAM Act and Civil Unions.

6.  You know, coordinated money does make a difference, even in spite of the failures of Karl Rove and company in 2012.  Their failures only prove that money has its limits and that the American voters have their limits as to what kind of crazy they will elect to Congress and the Senate.  We've had coordinated money in Colorado for years. It's one of the reasons Democrats have been so successful in a state that 20 years ago when I was Jefferson County Republican Chairman was solidly Republican.  Now, not so much.  So, but on your big girl panties and forget about all this Citizens United weeping and how bad PAC and big money is.  You've got to have enough to compete.  You don't have to outspend them, but you do have to have a coordinated message.  That means not just state-wide, but nationwide.  Obama blew it by not nationalizing this election.  Remember the Contract on America?  It worked even though no part of it was ever passed by the House.  To do this you have to have coordinated money.  You can do it, we did it in Colorado.  Any, you also have to sometimes ignore your candidates who aren't wearing their big girl panties.  Candidates don't always know what's best for them and consultants don't always know either.  Get the people behind the scenes who don't has a particular loyalty to any candidate and who don't make any money from candidates.  Get them to do it.  It works.

7.  Which reminds me. seek out "Republican" friends or Republicans who have left the party and are so disgusted that they want the "Republican" Party today to go the way of the Whigs.  Seek out former office holders or those of us who pulled the strings in the background.  We can help you win, and a lot of us will.

8.  Democrats have to quit the shit of "all for one."  It's got to be "one for all."  There are so few Democrats left in Republican leaning seats that they really don't matter any more.  Nationalize elections and I bet Democrats pick up more Republican seats than they lose Democratic seats.

There's your plan.  Now quit wringing your hands and get it done.   If you do, one day I might just become a Democrat, becuase the Democrats will have earned my party affiliation.

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

  •  Party building is always a good thing to... (5+ / 0-) Local works best because it gets more people more engaged.

    But, as far as the EV rigging goes, it appears that the Virginia attempt is dead already, and without any legislation actually having been introduced in Florida, the top two Republicans in the Florida House and Senate have both spoken against the rigging proposal, so it's probably dead before anybody offers it there.

    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 Jan 25, 2013 at 01:33:22 PM PST

  •  We must get used to the sleeze of the GOP. (0+ / 0-)

    What they can not convince the American people of they will try to lie, cheat and steel to get, instead.  We must always answer this crap; however, so that the poorly informed are given information about this type of political warfare, still it is far much, better than guns to settle things/issues.  How will we function with one party when the GOP croaks?  Harry Reid did the minimal to change the filibuster, but there is change, so let's see how this works.  Mark my words, there is a new day dawning in America for the civic minded to take action in a  civic way, and how is that?  Well, through verbal, written debate and widely deseminated information and then we will watch our elected officials responses to our distillations especially how they vote and then we will decide if you can stay or not via our votes and influence.  Look at it, as the last opportunity for the GOP to do right by the American people and then we will run against you, (them), if it is called for.

  •  Thanks for this. I also saw the Huff Post article (0+ / 0-)

    and immediately thought the results were wierd.  Why WOULD the GOP in Texas change to congressional districts.

    The GOP wants winner take all in the state they win while in the blue states they want to divide dispropotionately (due to gerrymandering)

    Your diary made me feel less dire about the situation.  But, that does not mean we wont hav ework to do as you point out.  The GOP plays for keep and you better be sure they are always looing for ways to stay in power.  They know time is against them........there base is getting older and the county as a whole is getting more diverse.

    On a semi-unrelated note, is there a way to require redistircting be done by an impartial (if there is such a thing) third party.

  •  I do not think Scott Walker will survive his (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Up North

    next election in Wisconsin.

    He survived the recall mainly because a number of voter (DEMS included) did not believe in a recall.  

    His approval numbers are abysmal and he has done nothing for the state as far as jobs.  We were dead last for a while in job creation and now rank just 42nd.

    If the DEMS can put up a good candidate he should go down.

    But the gerrymandered state congressional districts will be harder to change.  We will need to have a strong Democratic Presidential candidate running in 2020 so the election year turnout will overwhelm the gerrymandered districts.  Only then will we hopefully regain our state house and fix all the bullshit he has done to this sate in the last 2 years.

    In 2012, 200,000 more Dems voted for state reps but the GOP held control of the assembly and regained control of the state senate.

    Things are effed up here.

  •  All good ideas (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not as super concerned about all these machinations in the statehouses about the Electoral College.  Even if the Republicans got all the states in question to do a CD based vote system, Romney would have only won a squeaker.  And, as you point out, because of our relative strength in our own CDs, almost all the "battleground" districts would be us playing offense on their turf.

    Thought of another way, while these moves seemingly take from our side in the close states because we've been winning them the last few cycles.  But all of these state have been close and we certainly can lose them in the future.  So when a Republican finally is able to eke out a popular vote margin in, say, Pennsylvania, they will just be picking up a couple of votes instead of a forty vote swing.

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

    by slothlax on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:38:19 PM PST

  •  It is bad for our country, period (0+ / 0-)

    to have house districts won determine the distribution of electoral votes.

    Both parties gerrymander districts when they have House, Senate, and Governorship. I live in MA. Our districts are ridiculous in obviously gerrymandered FOR the Dems.

    Nebraska and Maine have so few districts--Nebraska has three. Maine has two. So they can't really be gerrymandered much. It doesn't matter much so the "precedent" of these two states really isn't one.

    MI and OH (and VA and FL) and Wi can claim ME and NE as precedent but truly only now we see that it should not be done.
    By either party.

    Because house districts can be gerrymandered it should not be legal/constitutional for a state to both redistrict and then decide to allocate electoral votes by district.

    This i an oversight in the constitution if it's not in there. Clearly it is not the intention. Clearly it is wrong and bad for our country.

    We need to go to straight national popular vote for winner if this happens.

    And when any Dem runs for state office...governor, representative, state Senate--he needs to remind voters what the Repubicans will do if they are in power. He needs to remind Dems to show up and what is at stake.

    I hope voters in Blue states learn what happens when they vote for all REpublicans. We in MA will do that for Governor but our legislature remains enough to override vetos if needed (as they did when Romney was Governor something like 600 times!)

  •  Fantastic piece (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicating, ScottyUrb

    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
    -- Dr. Peter Venkman

    Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at

    by Eclectablog on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 03:31:40 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site