Heads-Up: 'GOP May Revive Plan To Influence Electoral College' - MSNBC

[WillyT]

GOP may revive plan to influence Electoral College
By Zachary Roth - MSNBC
11/10/14 12:51 PM—UPDATED 11/10/14 02:59 PM

<snip>

For some Republicans, making it harder for Democratic-leaning groups to vote isn’t enough. They also want to give themselves an undemocratic leg up in the Electoral College.

The GOP’s wins last week in statehouses across the country are tempting conservatives to revive a plan to sway the Electoral College in their favor by dividing up their Electoral Votes (EVs) rather than giving them all to the popular vote winner. The result would be to make it much more likely that Republicans could win the White House while losing the popular vote nationally.

Several Republican-controlled states have flirted with the idea in recent years before backing off, appearing to calculate that the political controversy the move would stir up would outweigh the upside. But Tuesday’s sweeping GOP wins, the intensifying polarization of our politics, and the party’s recent struggles in presidential elections could put it back on the agenda.

An article Friday by Jim Geraghty of National Review, a leading opinion shaper for conservatives, floated moving forward with the plan in six states – Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa and Nevada – where Republicans will have total control next year. Doing so would make it “nearly impossible for the Democratic nominee to win,” Geraghty wrote. A map in the article shows much of the midwest, including Democratic strongholds like Michigan and Illinois, colored red. A caption below the map calls the idea “pretty tempting.”

And an op-ed the same day in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call by Rob Richie and Claire Daviss of Fairvote, a good government group, also suggested it could happen.

Here’s how the scheme would work:

<snip>

More: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-may-revive-plan-rig-electoral-college

[Blue Owl]

1. Fuck those goddamn sacks of shit

and the vote-suppressing sewage they floated in on.

[yeoman6987]

2. Maine and Nebraska already do this

I am not sure it would really help either party doing this especially if they end up doing it in all 50 states. They seem to forget Texas would give up some electoral numbers just like California would. I think they are going to decide against this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. Agree

Absent an amendment to completely get rid of the Electoral College, which I don't believe would ever pass, it seems to me that this would come much closer to actually representing votes cast than the current method.

[mvymvy]

19. National Popular Vote Bill - 61% of the way of going into effect

By state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[unblock]

26. "seems" being the operative word here.

the biggest problem of course is that republicans want to do this in big states that usually go blue while fighting like hell against this crazy idea in places like texas.

what it does is water down the power of "winner-take-all" in states they don't want to have a voice, and therefore amplifies this power in states that they do want to have a voice.

[drm604]

4. Individual states would do it based on whether or not they thought it would help Republicans.

So if doing it in Texas would benefit Democrats, then they wouldn't do it there, but they would do it in states where it would benefit Republicans.

[yeoman6987]

5. Ugh!

Well of course Democratic politicians would never decide to counter and do it in their majority states. Too polite I guess. Ugh!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. I'm not sure there are any Democratic majority states where it would help Democrats n/t

[unblock]

28. we would need democratic control of a state that usually votes for the republican for president.

don't think we have that anywhere, perhaps because we don't cheat as much.

[DanTex]

6. Yeah, but they're not trying to do it in all 50 states.

They only want to do it in states where it would hurt Democrats.

[4139]

8. Right now candidates only focus on 8 swing states and ignore the other 42,

That would change. Right now neither party campaigns in California, Maryland, Massachusetts.... Nor Mississippi, Alabama...

[mvymvy]

20. IFFF changed in all 50 states, Focus Could Then be on Only 8% of Country

The GOP plan is NOT to change in all 50 states.
The GOP wants California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi and Alabama to use the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

[markpkessinger]

11. Maine has all of 4 electoral votes, and Nebraska has 2 . . .

. . . so it isn't likely to make a difference in national elections if they do this. But for an illustration of just how pernicious this would be, take a look at a more populous state such as Pennsylvania, historically a swing state in national elections.

If the GOP plan had been in effect in 2008, rather than getting Pennsylvania's full complement of 21 electoral votes, 10 would have been awarded to McCain and 11 to Obama (9 for the 9 Congressional districts in which he won, and the extra two awarded because he won the overall vote). That would have meant that President Obama, despite having won 55% of the popular vote in a fairly large state, would have enjoyed a net benefit of ONE electoral vote over his opponent. Republicans describe the plan as "proportional representation," but it isn't really. Pennsylvania had (and still has, although the map has since been redrawn) many more predominantly red districts (rural areas) than blue ones (urban/suburban ones), but the majority of the population resided in the bluer districts. So the GOP's plan would given the McCain greater representation in the electoral college vote from PA than than he had earned at the ballot box, and would have given President Obama correspondingly less representation in that vote than he had earned at the ballot box.

The thing is, many swing states have a similar distribution of population, with the majority of the population concentrated in a smaller number of predominantly blue districts, but a greater number of predominantly red districts. So in these states, this plan will have the effect of giving greater voice to a minority of voters than they do, in fact, represent as a proportion of those states' electorates. I do note your qualifying phrase, "especially if they end up doing it in all 50 states," but here's the thing: there are absolutely NO plans to do this in predominantly red states, nor is there any intention to float such a plan in these states. Don't be fooled by this -- it is a profoundly devious plan.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Let me be clear that I don't agree with states doing this

Although they are free to do so.

But using your example above, the percentages wouldn't be off all that much. In 2008, President Obama garnered 54.47% of the vote in PA; using your numbers above, his electoral count would have been 52.38% off the total. McCain got 44.15% of the vote, and he would have received 47.62% of the electoral vote. So yes, it would have been off a bit.

But (and again, not saying that I agree with this, just stating the argument), the people in PA that voted for John McCain would most likely say that giving him ~3.5 percentage points more than he earned is not as much of an injustice as giving President Obama ~47.6 percentage more than he earned in votes.

[markpkessinger]

16. No, it's not off by that much in a single state . . .

. . . But two percentage points is quite significant, and when that kind of redistribution of electoral college percentages happens across multiple swing states (but not in red states), it becomes very significant indeed.

As to your point that "people in PA that voted for John McCain would most likely say that giving him ~3.5 percentage points more than he earned is not as much of an injustice as giving President Obama ~47.6 percentage more than he earned in votes," here's the thing: for a state that adopts this proportional (by congressional district) representation, the power of its majority voice is reduced significantly relative to that of those states that do not adopt it. Again, if ALL states did this, it would be a different matter, but there is no plan anywhere to do this in any but the swing states. And the reason for that is quite obvious. This idea is targeted towards swing states: specifically, swing states in which the majority of the population resides in a minority of districts, and where Democrats tend to be found in those same districts. This unfairly advantages rural districts over urban ones, and Republicans over Democrats, in these states.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. Agree on all points n/t

[mvymvy]

22. Maine has 4 electoral votes, Nebraska has 5

[mvymvy]

23. MI, OH, WI, FL, IA and NV would change to congressional district method

Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa and Nevada are proposing a congressional district method.

Pennsylvania is the only state considering a whole number proportional method of awarding electoral votes.

In 2012, Obama won the popular vote in Pennsylvania by 309,840 votes and received all of the state’s 20 electoral votes. Under the newest GOP proposed plan in Pennsylvania, he would have only received 8 of the state’s 20 electoral votes. Under the newest GOP proposed plan in Pennsylvania, no presidential candidate would care about Pennsylvania voters and the issues that matter most to us. They would not bother polling, visiting, advertising, and organizing in the state. A candidate would need to win 56% of the total statewide vote just to receive one more electoral vote in Pennsylvania. No presidential candidate has scored as high as 56% in Pennsylvania since the Nixon landslide of 1972.

[mvymvy]

18. Of Course, the proposed change in cherry picked states would help the GOP

The point is, Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections.

The Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes do not want to do it in all 50 states.

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

Even if the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***

A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

[mythology]

21. Except they won't push for it in Texas

They will push for it where it will benefit the Republican party.

[Ampersand Unicode]

35. The only other thing they could do

Is pass a "personhood" law that strips that status of everyone but white, male, Christian property owners who attend church regularly and don't have "the gay." Then the popular vote is only given to actual persons (well, and corporate persons "owned" by white, male, heterosexual churchgoing Christians).

Paradoxically, it would logically invalidate personhood laws extending the status of persons to black fetuses. They only get 3/5 of a personhood status, immediately rescinded once fully born.

Of course, no personhood for corporate persons owned and operated by black fetuses. If a black fetus is not a full person, it cannot legally own a corporate person of any race.



In other news, Republicanism is a delusional psychotic mental disorder.

[earthside]

9. State winner take all by CD?

I thought a few years ago one of the Repuglican plans was that all of a state's electoral votes would go to the winner of the majority of the congressional districts. In other words, if the Democratic Party nominee won three of Colorado's congressional districts and the Repuglican nominee won the remaining four, then the Repuglican would get all nine Colorado electoral votes.

Or ... the winner of each congressional district gets that electoral vote and the winner of the majority of CDs get the other two electoral votes.

Either way I think this is a plan to implement Repuglican minority rule in this country forever.
And I think these so-called 'constitutionalists' are perfectly capable and more than willing to subvert democracy for their own empowerment.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. I think the way it is in Nebraska and Maine

is that the winner of each CD gets an electoral vote, and then the popular vote winner for the state gets the two Senatorial electoral votes.

[markpkessinger]

12. Exactly right . . .

. . . and see my post upthread about why it is such a diabolical plan.

[B Calm]

13. In the 2000 election they were wanting to do away with the electoral college.

[WillyT]

14. Yep... Until It Saved Their Asses...

The POPULAR VOTE... was Al Gore.

[mvymvy]

24. Most Americans Support a National Popular Vote

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.
In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

AK – 70%, AR – 80%, AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CO – 68%, CT – 74%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, ID – 77%, KY- 80%, MA – 73%, ME – 77%, MI – 73%, MN – 75%, MO – 70%, MS – 77%, MT – 72%, NC – 74%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NM– 76%, NV – 72%, NY – 79%, OH – 70%, OK – 81%, OR – 76%, PA – 78%, RI – 74%, SC – 71%, SD – 71%, TN – 83%, UT – 70%, VA – 74%, VT – 75%, WA – 77%, WI – 71%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.

& &
A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.

& &
A survey of Ohio voters showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 61% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 60% among 30-45 year olds, 67% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 84% among women and 54% among men.

& &
A survey of Wisconsin voters showed 71% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.

& &
A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

& &
A survey of Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.
By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.

& &
A survey of Nevada voters showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.

NationalPopularVote

[Robbins]

25. So

More on republicans trying to ensure democrats can never win again.

Republicans want to create a permeant one party state In AMerica like the Nazis In Germany and communist party In Russia.

ENd of democracy is coming.

[Ampersand Unicode]

33. Hence the Voter ID laws and gutting of Voter Rights Act.

...making it more difficult for "those people" to never elect a black guy again.

Never forget: Hitler was democratically elected too.

[liberal N proud]

27. Gerrymandering only insures their control of the State Houses and Congress

This fixes it all.

[Zen Democrat]

29. Instead of jacking with the Electoral College, just get rid of the damned thing!

[mvymvy]

30. 3% of US Pop could stop amendment

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. I don't ever see that happening n/t

[Ampersand Unicode]

32. This is the only college they care about.

Seeing as most of them either went to fake-ass divinity schools or flunked out of third grade.

Why bother funding all that snobby book-lurnin' that only queer-o-sexual libruhls care about?

[woodsprite]

34. So, it's gerrymandering at a federal level. n/t

[City Lights]

36. Dictators.

I am at a point where I'll be surprised if this doesn't happen. We are screwed for a very long time.

[napkinz]

37. kick

nt

[AngryAmish]

38. Keep the dimes, toss the nickles

There will be more like this.