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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander [Rig] its way back to the White House

Posted by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM
  • 73 Replies

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House


Still reeling from their second straight presidential loss to Barack Obama, Republicans are working to make drastic changes to how electoral college votes are allocated in key swing states.

Republicans in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all proposed scrapping the “winner take all” electoral vote system in favor of plans that would reward the GOP’s recent gerrymandering. The six states considering the varied plans are all swing states that have gone for Barack Obama twice now, and others have been hard fought but ultimately gone blue for even longer.

The plans vary. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers want to siphon off a handful of electoral votes for the runner-up candidate–which has been the Republican since 1992. In other states, the proposal calls for the overall winner of the popular vote to get two votes, while the rest of the votes are distributed by congressional district. That plan is already in place in Maine and Nebraska.

What does that look like when implemented in these swing states? Here’s how it would’ve played out in the 2012 election in a handful of states controlled by Republicans.

In Florida, where Romney lost by only 1%, Obama would have lost even bigger: Romney would have picked up more than half the state’s electoral votes.

FLORIDA RIGGED

In Ohio, where Obama eked out a 2% lead, Romney would have won two-thirds of the state’s votes.

OHIO RIGGED

In Wisconsin, Romney would have won half the state’s votes, despite losing the overall vote by 7%.

WISCONSIN RIGGED

And Romney would no longer have lost his home state of Michigan, even though he lost the popular vote there by 9%. Instead, he’d have picked up nine electoral votes.

MICHIGAN RIGGED

Pennsylvania’s plan, which allocates votes based on the overall percentage, gives Romney his smallest advantage, with only eight extra electoral votes. That’s still a nice bonus for a guy who lost the state by 5% and therefore lost all 20 electoral votes.

PENNSYLVANIA RIGGED

The plan advanced this week by a Virginia Senate subcommittee is even more lopsided, allocating the two extra votes not to the popular vote winner, but to the winner of the most congressional districts. The result? Romney picks up 9 of the state’s electoral votes, despite losing the state’s popular vote by 3%.

VIRGINIA RIGGED

If the plans currently on the table were implemented in these six states alone, Romney picks up another 60 electoral votes, bringing his total to 266 nationwide, making the race much closer but not ultimately taking the victory away from Barack Obama.

An analysis by Alan Abramowitz for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics found that if a Maine—or Nebraska—style system had been in place nationwide for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have defeated Barack Obama, 276 electoral votes to 262 electoral votes, despite losing the popular vote by 4%. If the plan being pushed in Virginia became the law of the land nationwide, that difference would be even more stark.

This new plan reflects the fact that in all these states, Republicans are in control of the state house and have been since 2010. The successful pro-Republican gerrymandering that took place that year didn’t just protect the Republican control of the House of Representatives, but also laid the groundwork for taking back the presidency. If these plans, which are by most accounts legal (although they could be challenged in court), were to become law, it would be difficult for Democrats to win the presidency in 2016, even if they win by millions of votes.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 8:49 PM

I'm glad michigan was induced on the map. I consider the gerrymandering that happened her last season to be so egregious it's criminal.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 8:51 PM
1 mom liked this

Does anyone else find this crazy?

Romney could have  beaten Obama despite losing the popular vote in all six of those states and the national vote by 4%

I guess if voter suppression won't work, rigging the system is the next best thing.

Imacakebaker
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM
1 mom liked this

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:02 PM

You think it's fair that the popular vote can be for Candidate X in a state but Candidate Y can win thanks to Gerrymandering? You think it is fair that the majority of a country can vote for Candidate X but thanks to Gerrymandering and the Electoral College a group can give the Presidency to who they want to win?

How exactly is that fair? Or by fair do you mean, "They didn't have the popular vote but this way they can still win"?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM
You think it's fair because a Republican would have won, or the 'system' is better?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Imacakebaker
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:05 PM
1 mom liked this

Did you see all of the states in your example were RED?

Where was the people's voice in the RED areas?   It is a great example why we should split the ec votes.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You think it's fair that the popular vote can be for Candidate X in a state but Candidate Y can win thanks to Gerrymandering? You think it is fair that the majority of a country can vote for Candidate X but thanks to Gerrymandering and the Electoral College a group can give the Presidency to who they want to win?

How exactly is that fair? Or by fair do you mean, "They didn't have the popular vote but this way they can still win"?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.




Imacakebaker
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:06 PM

It is more representative.  

Quoting LucyMom08:

You think it's fair because a Republican would have won, or the 'system' is better?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.


LucyMom08
by Gold Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM
How so?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

It is more representative.  

Quoting LucyMom08:

You think it's fair because a Republican would have won, or the 'system' is better?



Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Imacakebaker
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:09 PM
1 mom liked this

Again.. Did you see how the states were majority RED?  Where was their voice??  

Its ok to only win 4 counties and tall ALL the votes?

Quoting LucyMom08:

How so?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

It is more representative.  

Quoting LucyMom08:

You think it's fair because a Republican would have won, or the 'system' is better?



Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.



brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:11 PM

That's only because the districts were drawn that way. Which is my point. Gerrymandering is a corrupt system in which the Political parties themselves draw up the districts to benefit their parties (Both Sides do this).

Making the Electoral College be based off these Gerrymandered districts allows for someone to lose the popular vote but win the majority of the electoral colleges. This is OPPOSITE of representing the most people and allows a minority vote to win the state.

In this case it can allow someone who LOSES the popular vote in six states win in all six states and win an  election that he should otherwise lose.

The people's voice in Red is accounted for in the current system. Or do the democrats voice not matter because they live close together in big cities?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

Did you see all of the states in your example were RED?

Where was the people's voice in the RED areas?   It is a great example why we should split the ec votes.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You think it's fair that the popular vote can be for Candidate X in a state but Candidate Y can win thanks to Gerrymandering? You think it is fair that the majority of a country can vote for Candidate X but thanks to Gerrymandering and the Electoral College a group can give the Presidency to who they want to win?

How exactly is that fair? Or by fair do you mean, "They didn't have the popular vote but this way they can still win"?

Quoting Imacakebaker:

I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.






Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

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)