HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Latest Effort to Fix ...

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:53 PM

The Latest Effort to Fix Election Results: Rig the Electoral College

Despite Wisconsin residents overwhelmingly voting for Democrats in the 2012 elections -- sending progressive powerhouse Tammy Baldwin to the U.S. Senate and reelecting President Barack Obama by 6.8 points -- five of the state's eight newly-drawn congressional districts voted out of sync with the majority of Wisconsinites and went for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. This is largely because the GOP reworked congressional maps to their party's benefit during the redistricting process that followed the 2010 census and elections. Now, Republicans in Wisconsin are discussing plans to allocate the state's electoral college votes according to these new Congressional districts, giving the GOP a chance for victory in a state that has elected Democrats in each of the past seven Presidential elections.

Gov. Scott Walker recently expressed support for awarding presidential elector votes by Congressional district rather than statewide totals, incoming Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has sponsored legislation to make such a change in past sessions, and Republican legislators introduced a bill to do this in 2011. As Mother Jones reported, Pennsylvania Republicans considered similar legislation last year, and are again considering such a plan to rig the electoral college. Republican legislators in Michigan also plan to introduce legislation.

A majority of voters in all three states voted for Obama in November, but a majority of congressional districts in those states went for Romney. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, state government is controlled by Republicans who redrew congressional maps during the last legislative session.

"If each Congressional district has equal weight, Republicans would win much more easily because they carry more Republican districts," said Jay Heck, director of Common Cause Wisconsin.


Much more at http://www.prwatch.org/node/11922 .

10 replies, 2152 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Latest Effort to Fix Election Results: Rig the Electoral College (Original post)
snot Jan 2013 OP
graham4anything Jan 2013 #1
Proud Public Servant Jan 2013 #3
graham4anything Jan 2013 #5
Panasonic Jan 2013 #4
graham4anything Jan 2013 #6
Panasonic Jan 2013 #7
graham4anything Jan 2013 #8
rufus dog Jan 2013 #2
Blue Nile Jan 2013 #9
graham4anything Jan 2013 #10

Response to snot (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:58 PM

1. President Obama still would have won a landslide...now let's do the same to Texas

 

anyway you cut it, the Democrats as long as they don't stupidly fracture will win presidential elections.

Hillary45 will win close to 400 votes and its possible Texas will be blue if Castro becomes governor.
Georgia, SC, NC, etc.

demographic change some day may be 450 blue or more

We should never cede the electoral vote. They have no way to win it.

Even a Chris Christie wouldn't win NY or NJ or any blue state.

If Charlie Crist wins the governorship of Florida, the dems will control the Florida election board even if Jeb or Rubio were the candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:17 PM

3. I don't think that's true

Don't have all the numbers at my fingertips, but OH provides a good example. Obama won the state cleanly and got it's 18 electoral votes; however, Romney won 11 of the 16 districts. So on election night, that would have been 11 ECs for Romney and only 9 for Obama (the 7 districts he won plus the 2 at large). PA would have broken the same way.

Or you could look at it this way: The current House is 200 Dems, 233 GOP, plus DC (Dem) and two unfilled (but for the sake of argument let's make them Dem). If each of those represents one EC, and then Obama and Romney each get the at-large ECs in the states they won, (54 for Obama, 48 for Romney), then Romney wins, 281-257. We know there wasn't a perfect 1-to-1 correspondence between district rep votes and pres votes but, with all the gerrymandering, I'm willing to bet it was pretty close.

Again, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but given that we took EVERY big and medium-size state except for TX, NC, and GA, I can't help but think we would lose more in this scenario than we would win. It would make for a much, much closer race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:31 PM

5. you would be assuming all states would do it.

 

and if all states would do it, Obama would have won 1/2 of Texas

its not who is in the house in each district, it is who votes in each district

besides, with the coming demographic change soon it will all change

2020 will have another census, then the dems can gerrymander it back
Especially Texas if Castro becomes Gov.

Why the dems ceded all the governorships shows how while he is hated, Karl Rove did a great job for their side stocking all positions from the lowest to the highest

Instead of worrying, better to get a good challenger to each and every person, and have a deep, deep bench (baseball term) in each district in each state

(for instance, if instead of being anonymous, every state had a OWS type run for office you could come up with lots of winners.That is why OWS being anonymous is long term defeatist
Better they all have leaders who then run for office every two years

Working from within can change everything quickly
working from without doesn't change anything

(good example would have been if Cindy Sheehan had run for congress in a district she would have won, not made a silly race against Pelosi.She could have been now a 6 term congresswoman).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:27 PM

4. Knock it off with Hillary45, please.

 

I'm asking you nicely.

She just had a clot on her brain, and I don't think she will be running in '16, despite how much you want her to.

Obama hasn't even been sworn in for his second term....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:34 PM

6. This is wrong. You need to stock the fields ahead of time, they do.

 

and millions of people age 1 to 100 get this. No biggie.Joe Biden had something similiar 40 years ago now, hasn't slowed him down one bit.

But you gotta plan ahead of time.

that 9 step ahead President Obama does so well.

We are woefully behind the repubs

they have had the advantage for many years because from the lowest to the highest, they have their people in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:42 PM

7. Yes, yes, but I think there are far more better candidates than just Ms. Clinton

 

And many of them won't announce at least until '14.

Give it a little time before bringing it up, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:57 PM

8. Never too early. I am already thinking of Michelle46 2024.

 

and we, or at least President Obama's fans, want a continuation of his 8 years.
So there is no reason not to wait.

Which is why we need 100% amnesty, 100% citizenship in 2013.

And by having a continuation, it staves off lame duck syndrome.

Besides, it takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush, and Jeb will be their nominee imho

and no, there is no other candidate that comes close to Hillary45, nor another that can win. imho(unless Michelle runs in 2016, but that would be doubtful. She should run at some point for Senate in Illinois).

And if Vicky Kennedy would have run for Senate, she would instantly be considered for the Presidency.

but other than those two, there is no other person that could easily win.

And I am sure you would agree, it is way past due for a woman to be President.

but they can't quickly change the electoral system, it would take at least 10 years to accomplish, and any popular vote count would easily go democratic as it has now for
5 of the last 6 elections. Only in 2004 did a republican win the popular vote, going back to 1992.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:03 PM

2. Equal Protection Clause

 

I am already pissed that my vote in CA nets me two Senators, while a vote in WYO gets the same two Senators even though my COUNTY is almost 10x more populated than WYO.

If they try at the Presidential level there will be hell to pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:44 PM

9. Tough to pull off in PA

I have a feeling that the window for this kind of change has probably closed in my state of PA.Prior to the last election the GOP controlled the State Senate 30-20.In the November 2012 election,the democrats picked up Senate seats in Erie,Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and the Senate is now 27-23 in favor of the GOP.In the State House of Representatives there was again a gain by the Democrats but not as large as the Senate (went from 112-91 to 110-93 in favor of GOP). This kind of tight margins make it hard for the change in law to happen and I just do not see the passion for this. It will only serve to increase Democratic turnout in a non-presidential year putting a lot of GOP held seats in play. The margin in PA in the Presidential election was 5 points (52-47) and a GOP candidate with moderate appeal can still hope to win the state. President Bush got 48.5 % of the vote in 2004 and with more effort could have carried the state. Not all Democratic candidates of the future are going to be able to match President Obama's appeal.
Gov.Corbett is not very popular a this time with ratings in the 30s and has no appetite for this fight.

Wisconsin surprises me because like PA it can be potentially won by a Republican candidate.President bush lost his 2 elections by 5000 and 21000 votes respectively. Again I repeat that every Democratic candidate is not President Obama and even in the last election the margin was only 6.5 points.A 4 point shift can flip this state to the GOP candidate and the state's entire votes to his column.Imagine a republican candidate work hard to win these 2 states only to give up 10-15 electoral votes to the Democratic candidate and end up @ 265! Remember that the Democratic candidate will start off with a much larger cushion while the GOP candidate has to thread the needle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Nile (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:49 AM

10. The second paragraph is a great point

 

a republican that would actually be able to win these states without playing games, would in essence lose the states because it would help the democrats

(much like every other "fix" the repubs have tried like term limits of presidents. It backfires on them.

One of the reasons the democrats did not rush to change things after the 2000 and 2004 elections when 2008 came.

And one of the reasons they are hesitant to change anything at all. Because it backfires at some point.

And the public is wiser now and with new social media, they are quick to pick things up and make an issue of it.
(Had for instance there been the social media in 2000, I am convinced the Tom DeLay goons who posed as regular citizens would have been outed and the recount continued
and
The meeting that led to the real info in the "supposed" fake memo would have had pictures from cell phones and if there was a set up(like it was said at the time that a republican trickster was posing as the person passing a memo on), he would instantly have been outed and they couldn't have screwed Rather.

I don't much like the theft scenerios anyhow. After 2012, President Obama won a major landslide, yet some were still floating the Rove story to delegitimize his major victory.

And even lets say they change some of the states-
well, the GREAT candidates would adjust their thinking and go to all the areas in a state and not just the big ones, so one could not even say, that had President Obama shook hands with thousands of people in every district that was red, or tossed those districts some pork, why wouldn't some of them vote with him instead of against him?

And again, with the demographic change, soon red areas will be blue anyhow, so as you said, the individual repubs will end up being the ones voted out of office.
And it will lead to a better house, and more governorships(assuming we stock each race and have backups for the future in all districts. Why is that so hard for democratic state leaders to do? (if a state has 250 positions, you mean to tell me there are not 500 people in each state fully qualified to run? And in this day of social media, why can't a separate message for funds be put out for each and every one of them?
It could be like an adopt a red state district pledge across the country.
Make fundraising nationally to use on a very local area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread