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

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
Replies (31-40):
trippyhippy
by Gold Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 9:42 AM
4 moms liked this
So you are fine with cheating a large percentage of the population out of their vote as long as it makes your guy win? So you only care about democracy, the constitution and rights if it makes things go your way? Good to know. This discredits almost every argument you have ever made or will ever make on this site. Quite the patriot aren't you?


Quoting Naturewoman4:

At this point, I sure hope they win anyway they can.  If not, the Dems. are going to totally destroy this Country.  But, then again, they already have.  Good news though, I only have to put up with Obama just for another 4 yrs.  That it's over FINALLY!  Hopefully, Biden won't run & won't win.  Otherwise, it's like having another Obama.  Either way it doesn't matter anymore, because this Country is screwed! 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
GLWerth
by Gina on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM
2 moms liked this

You know, I'm moving more toward scrapping the electoral college altogether and moving to a national popular vote. 

LuvingMy3Girls
by Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM
1 mom liked this
I personal think we should just count the damn votes and who wins the most wins...
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Aslen
by Silver Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM
1 mom liked this
The presidential election should be by popular vote ONLY
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Aslen
by Silver Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:29 AM
1 mom liked this
MTE! There should be ZERO electoral college


Quoting trippyhippy:

So you are fine with cheating a large percentage of the population out of their vote as long as it makes your guy win? So you only care about democracy, the constitution and rights if it makes things go your way? Good to know. This discredits almost every argument you have ever made or will ever make on this site. Quite the patriot aren't you?




Quoting Naturewoman4:

At this point, I sure hope they win anyway they can.  If not, the Dems. are going to totally destroy this Country.  But, then again, they already have.  Good news though, I only have to put up with Obama just for another 4 yrs.  That it's over FINALLY!  Hopefully, Biden won't run & won't win.  Otherwise, it's like having another Obama.  Either way it doesn't matter anymore, because this Country is screwed! 



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Deshonsmommy
by on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:31 AM

The states were red becuase that is after they rigged it.


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.






brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:34 AM

That's the way the districts are currently drawn.

The mistake she was making was assuming because the red is spread out that it means that more people were voting that way.

But more people voted Blue but are just closer together. Being close together shouldn't make their vote count less.

The easy solution would be to get rid of the electoral college all together and let one person = one vote and the person with the most votes win.

Quoting Deshonsmommy:

The states were red becuase that is after they rigged it.


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

Rubberbiscuit
by Bronze Member on Jan. 26, 2013 at 10:42 AM
2 moms liked this

If the only way you can gain power is by rigging the system, that is a good sign that you are corrupt.  This is one party trying to make their votes more important than the other parties votes count for.  That is not democracy.  Everyone who loves this country, no matter what party you belong to, should be up in arms over the thought of them doing this.  This is more serious than Bengazi, gun magazine sizes, gay marriage, and abortion all rolled together. 

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Land masses do not vote, people do.

MR lost both the EC and the popular vote.

The outcome was (in your words) "fair".

Quoting Imacakebaker:

You are right.  It was 7% in 2008.

It makes no sense that the whole country was red, and a few cities were blue, and blue won.  Maybe we should just let the big cities vote.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You really are in denial. I went to the link you just gave. I clicked on Michigan.

President Obama 2,564,569 votes. 54.2%
Mitt Romney           2,115,256 votes. 44.7%

54.2 - 44.7 = 9.5.

That's using the site/source YOU gave.

President won by 9%. It doesn't make sense to create a system where someone can win by 9% and still lose in the electoral college.

Realistically everyone should get 1 vote. And the person with the most votes win.

Quoting Imacakebaker:

Where did you get this "article?"

Obama didn't win Michigan by 9%, he won by 7%.  The numbers are wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/michigan-election-results-2012_n_2047670.html

Each county should get X amount of ec votes.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

So lets get this right.

In Michigan where President Obama won the popular vote by 9%, you think it makes sense that Mitt Romney should get the most Electoral College Votes (Effectively winning the state)?

That doesn't make sense. And again that is OPPOSITE of representing the people.

Quoting Imacakebaker:

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.










Sisteract
by Whoopie on Jan. 26, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Indeed.

Quoting Rubberbiscuit:

If the only way you can gain power is by rigging the system, that is a good sign that you are corrupt.  This is one party trying to make their votes more important than the other parties votes count for.  That is not democracy.  Everyone who loves this country, no matter what party you belong to, should be up in arms over the thought of them doing this.  This is more serious than Bengazi, gun magazine sizes, gay marriage, and abortion all rolled together. 


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