Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

The GOP Plan to Steal Elections

Posted by on Jan. 26, 2013 at 5:34 PM
  • 27 Replies

The GOP Plan to Steal Elections

Republicans are proposing a radical rule change in swing states—one that would have handed Romney the election. Michael Tomasky on this jaw-dropping outrage.

I’m optimistic about the Republican Party. Does that surprise you? Well, let me qualify that. When I say I’m optimistic about the Republican Party, I am referring of course to the old joke in which the pessimist says, “Geez, things sure can’t get any worse,” and the optimist replies, “Oh, yes they can!” When the subject is today’s GOP and the conservative movement, things can always get worse. Having attempted virtually every dishonest and cynical trick in the book under existing rules, they have decided now that the problem is not their dishonesty or cynicism, but the existing rules, so the new task is to change them.

You’re familiar by now with the broad contours of how the GOP wants to change the Electoral College. OK, in case you’re not: They seek in six states to apportion the electoral vote according to congressional districts won instead of to the presidential candidate who won the state overall. For example, Pennsylvania has 18 congressional districts. Mitt Romney won 12 of them, and Barack Obama six. So even though Obama won the state overall by around five points, Romney would “carry” Pennsylvania, 12 electoral votes (EVs) to six (actually, 12 to eight—every state has two more EVs representing its two Senate seats, and Obama, as the overall winner, would get those; so nice of them!).

The six states, as you might guess, are not Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and the Dakotas. They are the aforementioned Keystone State along with Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia. The Virginia plan adds the clever wrinkle of giving those extra EVs not to the overall winner, but to the candidate who won the most congressional districts.

I think you can see where this is going. Obama carried fewer districts than Romney in all these states, but he won them by running up big margins in his congressional districts. This fact is in itself, to a considerable extent, a reflection of the reality that Republican state legislatures have drawn congressional district maps that pack as many Democrats into as few districts as possible. The electoral demographer Alan Abramowitz calculated that if these states had used this method last year, Romney would have won the election 271-267. He also reckoned that if every state had counted EVs this way, Romney would have won 276-262.

Obama received, remember, 5 million more votes than Romney.

There have been efforts in the past to fix or eliminate the Electoral College. It was almost eliminated—with bipartisan support—in the early 1970s. That proposal was advanced by two Democratic legislators, Senator Birch Bayh and Congressman Emmanuel Celler. It is true that they put it forward after the Republican, Nixon, won a lopsided Electoral College margin, far greater than his narrow popular vote margin. But interestingly, Nixon supported it. The vast majority of Republicans did, in the House anyway.

It died where every decent idea dies—in the Senate. But the point is that it was an honest reform, with the chips falling where they may. The same can be said of the current national popular vote effort, which would ensure that the winner of the most votes nationwide became president.

But this is just vote-rigging. Open cheating. It is astonishing, I mean absolutely jaw-dropping, that a major party chairman should openly endorse such an openly crooked scheme, as Reince Priebus has. It’s so Third World 1950s, like something Sukarno might have done, probably did do, in Indonesia to make sure the competing ethnic group didn’t win elections. He sure better be asked, the next time he goes on a Sunday show, how he purports to defend a plan that would have made someone president while receiving 5 million fewer votes than the other guy.

Rule-changing, as Donovan Leitch might have put it, is bound to be the very next phase, and not just on this front. The nullification craziness, mostly talk during the first Obama term, is inching toward codification. State legislators in Mississippi are pushing a bill to establish a (get this name) Joint Committee on the Neutralization of Federal Law to review federal statutes for their “constitutionality.” We don’t know how far this effort will get. But it is Mississippi, so who knows? But if not Ole Miss, then South Carolina or some other state will almost surely attempt to nullify some federal law in the next four years.

The D.C. Circuit Court panel decision Friday that Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional is another amazing instance of the right just changing rules it didn’t like. First, Republicans in the Senate set records blocking Obama appointees to various executive positions. Then Obama makes some recess appointments. Then they get three conservative judges, led by David Sentelle, Ken Starr’s favorite judge, to rule that “recess” has a very specific constitutional meaning, so that Obama can’t make the appointments the Republican Senate had been denying him from making in the first place.

Adam Serwer of Mother Jones did an excellent job yesterday of detailing the potentially vast implications of this ruling, which could reach far beyond labor law (as if that weren’t enough). The Obama administration will appeal this to the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito usually have an expansive view of presidential power. But will they in a high-profile case when the president is named Obama? Scalia also once took an expansive view of the commerce clause, and we all know how that ended up when it came time to decide health care.

We could toss all this information onto the ever-growing “Oh, those crazy Republicans” slag heap, have a laugh, and let it go. But this is concerted and serious. Rules, laws, customs, and norms that we have all abided by for centuries (the Electoral College and the primacy of federal law) or decades (recess appointments) have simply been producing too many outcomes conservatives don’t like. Most people, and movements, would try to change themselves so that they could maybe win under the long-agreed-upon rules. But conservatives have a cleverer way. Just make new rules. You better believe things can get worse.

by on Jan. 26, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Friday
by Platinum Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM
1 mom liked this

If they can't win honestly they have to figure something else out. They love our country too much to let the people destroy it by voting for Dems. The GOP only wants to save us from ourselves because we are too stupid, lazy and greedy to know what's best for us.

Whatever it takes to win, except you know stopping with the stupid.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

PamR
by Platinum Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 7:38 PM

BUMP!

29again
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 7:58 PM
3 moms liked this

So it is OK for just a FEW counties to determine the winner?  I am not sure that I agree with the plan mentioned above, but I don't like how it is set up now.  In my state, of 88 counties, there were 16 that went for Obama.   That is a very small percentage, yet that small group of people makes the decision for the whole state?  I KNOW I don't like that.  But I don't know what the solution is.

Friday
by Platinum Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:02 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting 29again:

So it is OK for just a FEW counties to determine the winner?  I am not sure that I agree with the plan mentioned above, but I don't like how it is set up now.  In my state, of 88 counties, there were 16 that went for Obama.   That is a very small percentage, yet that small group of people makes the decision for the whole state?  I KNOW I don't like that.  But I don't know what the solution is.

Counties don't equal people. I'd bet the county I live in, Los Angeles, has more people than any county in Ala where my mom was from. Much of the big patches of red are mostly land with few people.

I think we need to find a way to fix this gerrymandering BS but I don't have an answer.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:15 PM
5 moms liked this

Given the technology we have today, which didn't exist when the voting process was set into law, I think we should just go to a straight vote ~ each person votes once and the winner is the winner. Just because more people in a few countries vote one way rarely means that everyone did ~ and if those who voted differently are added together with the other counties it would likely have changed the results of more than a few elections.

I think that everyone should have ID, and everyone should get one vote ~ and I'd be comfortable with banishment from the US as the punishment for anyone caught in voter fraud. That's the best answer I've got at this point.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:16 PM
1 mom liked this

*Yawn*.

This is how the electoral votes in nearly all states used to be - proportional to the votes in the state. These state laws were then changed, to "winner takes all".  Who says the state laws can't be changed back, if the people in those states want to? This would allow them to have more say in the elections.

You do realize both parties have always strategized to affect elections in their favor?

The GOP efforts are legal. State laws can be changed by the legislature or the proposition process.

This is a strategic action, not an unconstitutional one - as it would be to deny someone their freedoms under the Constitution. "Your little book", as Piers Morgan calls it.


29again
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:24 PM
1 mom liked this

Upon more thought, though....  each Congressional district is supposed to cover approx. the same number of people, right?  Isn't that why we have a census, and then we deal with the redistricting due to losing or gaining population?  So, maybe since we can't seem to agree on voting ID laws, maybe that is the best way to do this..  Although I do like farmlady's idea a whole lot! 

mikiemom
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:39 PM

 the majority should determine the winner that's how it works. land mass is not what counts - human votes are what count. those 16 districts were probably chalk full of people so their votes count


Quoting 29again:

So it is OK for just a FEW counties to determine the winner?  I am not sure that I agree with the plan mentioned above, but I don't like how it is set up now.  In my state, of 88 counties, there were 16 that went for Obama.   That is a very small percentage, yet that small group of people makes the decision for the whole state?  I KNOW I don't like that.  But I don't know what the solution is.


 

mikiemom
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:40 PM
1 mom liked this

 

lol if it helped democrats ya'll would be screaming to high heaven.

Quoting SallyMJ:

*Yawn*.

This is how the electoral votes in nearly all states used to be - proportional to the votes in the state. These state laws were then changed, to "winner takes all".  Who says the state laws can't be changed back, if the people in those states want to? This would allow them to have more say in the elections.

You do realize both parties have always strategized to affect elections in their favor?

The GOP efforts are legal. State laws can be changed by the legislature or the proposition process.

This is a strategic action, not an unconstitutional one - as it would be to deny someone their freedoms under the Constitution. "Your little book", as Piers Morgan calls it.

 


 

29again
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 8:46 PM
2 moms liked this

Sweetie, those 16 counties were union counties.  They were chock full of bussed in immigrants, and dead voters.  Those counties had a bigger turnout than the population of the whole county.  Those counties were chock full of fraud, if you want to know the real truth, but I think we are just going to let that go.  I don't mind real live citizens voting, though.  I wish more real live citizens WOULD vote.

Quoting mikiemom:

 the majority should determine the winner that's how it works. land mass is not what counts - human votes are what count. those 16 districts were probably chalk full of people so their votes count


Quoting 29again:

So it is OK for just a FEW counties to determine the winner?  I am not sure that I agree with the plan mentioned above, but I don't like how it is set up now.  In my state, of 88 counties, there were 16 that went for Obama.   That is a very small percentage, yet that small group of people makes the decision for the whole state?  I KNOW I don't like that.  But I don't know what the solution is.




Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN