Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,909 posts)
11. Maine has all of 4 electoral votes, and Nebraska has 2 . . .
Mon Nov 10, 2014, 07:32 PM
Nov 2014

. . . 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fuck those goddamn sacks of shit Blue Owl Nov 2014 #1
Maine and Nebraska already do this yeoman6987 Nov 2014 #2
Agree SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #3
National Popular Vote Bill - 61% of the way of going into effect mvymvy Nov 2014 #19
"seems" being the operative word here. unblock Nov 2014 #26
Individual states would do it based on whether or not they thought it would help Republicans. drm604 Nov 2014 #4
Ugh! yeoman6987 Nov 2014 #5
I'm not sure there are any Democratic majority states where it would help Democrats n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #7
we would need democratic control of a state that usually votes for the republican for president. unblock Nov 2014 #28
Yeah, but they're not trying to do it in all 50 states. DanTex Nov 2014 #6
Right now candidates only focus on 8 swing states and ignore the other 42, 4139 Nov 2014 #8
IFFF changed in all 50 states, Focus Could Then be on Only 8% of Country mvymvy Nov 2014 #20
Maine has all of 4 electoral votes, and Nebraska has 2 . . . markpkessinger Nov 2014 #11
Let me be clear that I don't agree with states doing this SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #15
No, it's not off by that much in a single state . . . markpkessinger Nov 2014 #16
Agree on all points n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #17
Maine has 4 electoral votes, Nebraska has 5 mvymvy Nov 2014 #22
MI, OH, WI, FL, IA and NV would change to congressional district method mvymvy Nov 2014 #23
Of Course, the proposed change in cherry picked states would help the GOP mvymvy Nov 2014 #18
Except they won't push for it in Texas mythology Nov 2014 #21
The only other thing they could do Ampersand Unicode Nov 2014 #35
State winner take all by CD? earthside Nov 2014 #9
I think the way it is in Nebraska and Maine SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #10
Exactly right . . . markpkessinger Nov 2014 #12
In the 2000 election they were wanting to do away with the electoral college. B Calm Nov 2014 #13
Yep... Until It Saved Their Asses... WillyT Nov 2014 #14
Most Americans Support a National Popular Vote mvymvy Nov 2014 #24
So Robbins Nov 2014 #25
Hence the Voter ID laws and gutting of Voter Rights Act. Ampersand Unicode Nov 2014 #33
Gerrymandering only insures their control of the State Houses and Congress liberal N proud Nov 2014 #27
Instead of jacking with the Electoral College, just get rid of the damned thing! Zen Democrat Nov 2014 #29
3% of US Pop could stop amendment mvymvy Nov 2014 #30
I don't ever see that happening n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #31
This is the only college they care about. Ampersand Unicode Nov 2014 #32
So, it's gerrymandering at a federal level. n/t woodsprite Nov 2014 #34
Dictators. City Lights Nov 2014 #36
kick napkinz Nov 2014 #37
Keep the dimes, toss the nickles AngryAmish Nov 2014 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Heads-Up: 'GOP May Revive...»Reply #11