GOP eyes new election laws

[TomCADem]

Source: Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) — After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

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's Electoral 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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-election-laws-091622720--election.html

---

Like 2010, Republicans are hoping that Americans will be asleep at the wheel and stay home during the 2014 mid-terms, so that they can disenfranchise the public on a far larger scale in 2016.

Can you imagine elections where a Republican who only wins 47% of the popular vote is deemed the winner of the Presidency? Well, that is what we have to look forward to in 2016.

[secondwind]

1. So if a state is blue because its folks vote blue, you want to change the laws because a handful of

folks who are not Democrats are in the legislature?

How does that give "power to the people"?

[liberal N proud]

2. These blue states have been gerrymandered to allow for GOP rule in the State House

and Congress.

They are trying to figure out how to make that gerrymandering work in the Presidential election.

[lapfog_1]

3. yup. They want winner take all PER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Obama could win the state by 5 to 8 percent and yet get almost no votes or very few votes in the electoral college from that state.

It's a very blatant power grab by the Repukes.

[RandiFan1290]

4. These are the people we are supposed to "moderate" with?

When do the "centrist dems" start to push back against these people?

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. You seem to not get it ...

It's not the "centrist dems" that need to push back; but rather, Joe and Jane "Don't want to be Disenfranchised" Democrat, on the street that need to push back.

[AnnieK401]

5. I've been watching this closely but hoping they don't try it. n/t

[graham4anything]

6. No, this won't work, & warning what happens when Dems vote 3rd party(2000) or sit at home(2000)

Mitt Romney would NOT have won the election despite these sky is falling.

Because for him to have done that would have had it done in a vacuum where nothing else would change, which obviously would not be true.

Plouffe and Axelrod would have jiggled things around the campaign in total would have been run different

ALSO-say Chris Christie is on the ticket in 2016 and wins NJ (won't happen, but let's say).
In effect, this would HELP the democratic candidate not the repub as NJ is almost all blue
so Christie would lose electoral votes in that instant
(and Hillary in 2016 will win red states,

and not to mention the justice department won't look too kindly on this as normally there is a waiting period to change things so as not to affect the next election

BUT I worry that this is a rush to get rid of the electoral vote, which I hope doesn't happen
because be careful what one hopes for
Then every Wyoming and Kansas voter becomes more important not less important if its a nationwide vote.
and more funny stuff could happen.

Best is to NEVER AGAIN have anyone vote for the Ralph Nader's who are on the democratic side.
That was the lesson of 2000.
10 million LESS voters and more came out in 2000 than any other modern election

but Nader fans, 3rd party fans and republicans make sure one doesn't know that.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Actually, the BETTER plan is for Dems to field candidates

that Liberals and Progressives can get behind, negating the need to look elsewhere for acceptable candidates.

[MessiahRp]

9. That dude is crazy

Still blaming Nader like he ran in 2012 and will run in 2016. Read his other posts. Devoid of reality.

[graham4anything]

10. No, the best plan is to vote for the democratic person and not traitors like Nader

Why anyone thinks having a protest vote does anything but lead to republicans winners is beyond me, but there are many 3rd party chatboards loving the idea of splitting the vote
(and Ralph Nader has reaped millions whining about how both parties are the same while he takes baths in the millions they financed him with.)

(cue in picture of Ralph in a bath tub with republican money money money).

The best thing about Ralph Nader is no one will waste their vote ever again on 3rd parties

the worst democratic candidate is better than a 3rd party who won't caucus with democrats or a republican.

no matter which way you slice it as being otherwise.

So go vote for Jeb as a protest against president Obama.

the revolution was won in 2008, why vote in the person we voted out?

[RC]

13. How wallow! Give us someone to vote for. We haven't had that since 1996.

Northcaralina is correct

8. Actually, the BETTER plan is for Dems to field candidates that Liberals and Progressives can get behind, negating the need to look elsewhere for acceptable candidates.

We have way too many so called Democrats running for and in office that should be Republicans.
The Democratic leadership is 3 Way, which is nothing more than Republican enablers. Just being a Democrat doesn't cut it any more.

[The Green Manalishi]

15. Hell, try no one worth voting for since 1940.

Well, obviously any Democrat is better than any Republican, but FDR was the last one who really gave a damn about the middle class and/or understood and was willing to fight the corporate rulership.

[RC]

16. Can't really argue with that either.

[silvershadow]

7. The key point is they are *hoping we are asleep at the wheel. We can't be.

Keep the pressure on, shine the light on them. Organizers stay active. Now. 2014 is under way as we speak.

[drynberg]

11. I AGREE, WE NEED ELECTION CHANGES, SUCH AS

Ending Gerrymandering by the majority party. This is very anti-democratic and needs to end right now. If we do change "blue state/red state" Electoral College System, we should go 100% to National Popular Vote...not rely on corrupt Gerrymandering that should be illegal and should have never been allowed.

[AllyCat]

12. So yesterday the news is they know they may lose the House in 2014

But you gotta hand it to these guys: They know how to cheat! When faced with a losing platform and a fractured party, they just figure out how to rig the system so it doesn't matter anymore.

And yes, this IS about to happen in Wisconsin. We were so happy in 2012 when the nation did so well for the people...but we weep for what has happened in our state. We know it is going to be a rough ride.

[sulphurdunn]

14. I want to be sure

I understand this: Republican controlled legislatures in blue states want to create proportional electoral college voting in those states and want to keep the winner take all system in red states. Now that's subtle.

[AlbertCat]

17. Here's a suggestion for a new election law!

Hows about all FEDERAL elections must be run & counted exactly the same in all states?

[24601]

25. Except that the Constitution delegates that to the states. Two states, Maine and

Nebraska are not winner-take-all for their electoral votes.

[on point]

19. Counter argument - Time to dump the Electoral College and go for straight popular vote!

[graham4anything]

20. This is a red herring to get rid of electoral college. Don't fall for it

I think this is a red herring.

they aren't going to actually do this, want to rush dems into getting rid of electoral
then every single voter in Wyoming and the other deep red states becomes more important

[on point]

21. While serving a purpose in the past, I see no current value to EC. Convince me otherwise...

[graham4anything]

22. It would take at least a decade to remove it anyhow.

A constitutional amendment is a long process

[grahamhgreen]

23. They could with only 27% of the vote

[Cha]

24. Yeah, because they know damn well they have NOTHING to

offer anybody, anywhere, at any time. So they use their current power in the states to set up a grand scale Cheating map to success for the gop.

thank Goodness for the new OFA. Organizing For Action

[underpants]

26. So touchdowns with give 4 points to the offense and 3 to the defense?

I mean the defense WAS on the field