In November, Democratic candidates for Congress collectively got 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents, but the House speaker is a Republican, with a 33-seat Republican majority. That's not just us calculating it. That's the Republican State Leadership Committee touting the effects of its Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP. They write:
President Obama won reelection in 2012 by nearly 3 points nationally, and banked 126 more electoral votes than Governor Mitt Romney. Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents. But the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a Republican and presides over a 33-seat House Republican majority during the 113th Congress. How? One needs to look no farther than four states that voted Democratic on a statewide level in 2012, yet elected a strong Republican delegation to represent them in Congress: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
...
[T]he Republican firewall at the state legislative and congressional level held.
Last month ProPublica detailed exactly how REDMAP worked, with special emphasis on redistricting in North Carolina. If the REDMAP memo sounds like a sales pitch to donors, consider that the RSLC raised $30 million in 2010. (Adding, after the jump, Tuesday's show segment on this.)
Leave a Comment:
Obama won in November by almost 4 percentage points (51.1 per cent of popular votes to Romney's 47.2 per cent), not nearly 3.
Other than that, the Redmap memo is true-- Democrats got many more votes for Congress, but failed to win the House because the Republicans controlled redistricting after the 2010 Census.
"The Republican Firewall" is an interesting term for relentless gerrymandering.
I live in a congressional district that was gerrymandered Republican in 2010. I didn't see one election poster or sign during the runup to the election for the Republican candidate who is now my US Rep. No newspaper ads, no billboard, no nothing for the Republican and yet he still won. I guess he wrote off where I live in his bid for election. I live in NC. Terrible gerrymandering here!
In an age of computers and instataneous communication, there is not reason to not elect a President by nationwide popular vote.
In an age of computers and instantaneous communication, we could do without the House of Reps altogether and hold national popular votes on bills coming out of the Senate on a weekly basis. How much $$$$ would that save? How much corruption and graft would it avoid???
Wonko's idea, while doable, is bad. There are too many low-information voters in America. I read a better idea in the Letter section of my local newspaper: expand the size of the House, use the same ratio of Representatives to population that it had in 1776 (about 100,000 to 1). That will give us about 3,500 representatives. Gerrymandering would be much more difficult.
translation: we stole it!
Right on. If you can't win on merit, by all means steal it. This is where the Republican party admits, pretty much out loud and in broad daylight, that they can't win elections based on their candidates or ideas. Gotta steal it.
No, the Republicans didn't "steal" the vote! They took it away from a populace who didn't care enough to defend their liberties. They were only able to "gerrymander" and do what they did because WE the People weren't paying attention or just didn't care.
Enough of playing the "victim" - the Republicans didn't do anything we didn't allow them to do. And what they did isn't permanent, WE the People can undo it if we care enough to get out there and vote in local and state elections.
So let's see if WE the People want to whine and play victim or if we actually WANT to have the government we all talk about!
Once Republican, it will take a generation to undo their kind of gerrymandering because the districts are so uneven dems would have to register in republican areas and vote in those districts to undo it. We can't get a majority in Ohio now which is sad because Ohio is a purple state. I am a life long Democrat and I know you can not have 1 party control the country will come apart. We need to abolish the electoral college before 2016 PERDIOD!!!! The Repubs have the master plan, arm their constituents because they are a the minority party. When 52% gets tired of being ruled by 48% the 52% will be unable to revolt! Remember in the Revolutionary war days, the Patriots wore blue and the enemy, the red coats! These guys are the biggest domestic threat to democracy! Shining a light on it doesn't matter, the ones on their side, the electorate want the same thing, to win at all costs!! The time for the civil war is at hand, I head the beating of the drums of war, but they fall mostly on deaf ears. If you say these solutions do not work, tell that to all the fallen of the civil war, all the fallen at Gettysburgh, all the fallen in the revolution, all those that died at Pearl Harbor and the ones that fell in Europe. Sometimes the tree of freedom needs to be fertilized with the blood of patriots. We don't win wars by dieing for our beliefs, we win wars by killing for them!
LC&S should be the new name for the GOP Lie Cheat & Steal LCS for short! How much longer can our luck hold? McCain picked Palin and then they Picked Romney I mean how will they screw it up next time. But their plan of attack is over time, killing unions and this "firewall" we must make unions strong and a big comeback is what we need against this uncontrollable greed. I think they will push the whole country over the cliff just to prove a point. But Obama still has his executive order that can save us from utter ruin. But if they do it then we must be quick to press charges of treason and make them stick! Please tell me you agree!
refer to the earlier discussion and how to get the National Popular Vote Initiative approved in more states - the above post is even more reason to get rid of the Electoral College, and gerrymandering!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
I have an even better idea than abolishing the electoral college and would stop gerrymandering. Instead of voting for candidates you vote for Party. So in your state your ballot could have
1.) Republican
2.) Democrat
3.) Libritarian
4.) Green
5.) Socialist
6.) Fascist (Republican Lite)
and so on.
To win the election 1 party must have 50.001% of the vote. If no one does in the first election then you have a run off of the 2 parties receiving the most vote.
The winning party gets to appoint people to the offices from Govenor to every state house member to dog catcher. Redistricting would mean nothing there would be no need for it!
This is perhaps the most important story in politics and the most egregious offense of an offensive Republican party. Their outright attacks on the concept of democratic elections deserve far more attention, scrutiny, and outrage than they are currently receiving. Please keep up the pressure.
Is there anyway something like the Enforcement Acts of say 1870 could be utilized to stop this? Just curious.
OK Janet I skipped that class. sorry. what ?
This is so scary. I can't believe they are going to try and rig the presidential election.
They will try to rig the next election because they found out that they could not buy a presidential election! (I built uh bought that, oops)
> I can't believe they are going to try and rig the presidential election.
You should've followed the last election.
You probably can still look up what "voter suppression" was about.
You should have been in my home state of Ohio in 2004. The Republican tacts of that year caused me to register Republican to vote against Ken Blackwell in the Primary. He was running for Govenor against Jim Petro, who I hated almost as much. But anyway Ken was the head of elections in Ohio and ran W. Reelection campaign in our state, can you say conflict of interest? Any way this guy went on to short voting machines in Cuyahoga county, the blackest county in Ohio, Ken being a black man and old enough to remember Jim Crowe laws, should have known better. I could see Lindsay Grahm or Ron or Rand Paul of Droopy Eyes from Wisconsin pulling this crap but another black man.... Come ON!!!
To me, this is the biggest 2012 election story right behind Obama's re-election.
If the 2012 House vote had been conducted under the rules of the pre-gerrymanded arrangement, Democrats would have easily won a majority and Nancy Pelosi would be speaker again.
When pundits were gushing over the resilience of House members to get re-elected, they neglected to mention that most House members were only returned to their seats because Redmapping worked better than the House did.
Resilience??? When you let the inmates vote for the warden and you wind up with a crook running the place I have to say, WTF did you think was going to happen, oh wait you weren't thinking.... In Ohio we had a ballot initiative that would have left redistricting up to a panel of 12, (3) Dems, (3) Repukes & (3) Independents to make and approve district maps, but because of low information and illiterates and people too lazy to read the bill (It was on the ballot) it went down in defeat.
This is very concerning. In Ohio the Republicans already tried to restrict voting and rigged the elections through redistricting. All perfectly legal if immoral. Now they want to change the electoral college votes so a Republican can win presidential races forever? This is the ultimate craziness. If Repubs cant win from the platform they will win by purchasing as many votes as possible through SuperPacs and rigging elections. If they rig elections there will never be a Democrat majority to change it back. What is the answer?
When you represent fewer and fewer people you have to find away to make their votes weigh more... Come on it is "Thumb on the scale 101"......
i don’t know the answer and this is very frightening to me
Unfortunately, these states' citizens have elected republican representation. The elected officials have and can proceed under the "veil" of legislating the will of their constituents. The citizens of these states have to be more informed BEFORE going to the polls.
My hope is that POTUS puts the voting issue front and center for debate and legislation after he takes care of the following:
- Responsible Gun legislation
- Immigration
- Debt/Deficit, Taxes
- Health Care
oh man, POTUS has not even been sworn into second term yet...
Albany, if he puts voting front and center and does it first, the rest of those will take care of themselves by result of future elections. So go big first, make protecting voting and the will of the majority number 1, then get into the others, if your party does a good job the majority will reward by expanding the power of your party and their ideas. Sheeeze "Horse then Cart!!!!" Then the real journey can begin!!!!!!
Time to end the electoral college!!!! Time to change the way we vote for representatives. Maybe 1 person in each state (a highly qualified democrat) should vote for every state and federal representative and govenor and senator!!! If this all fail we libs need to demand our assault riffles and start using them to defend our constitution from the domestic enemies!!!!
The worst part about this is that most of the growth in many states has been due to the Latino population. The point of redrawing these districts is to allow the new population to have the governmental representation of their choice.
These rats have instead used this as an opportunity to dilute the votes of the very population that has allowed the districts to be added/changed.
Does anyone know of case law that could be argued against this insanity? This cannot possibly be legal or constitutional.
I tend to want to simplify it as taxation without representation, but obviously it is not that simple or these blatantly obvious gerrymandered district maps would have been thrown out immediately.
look you throw the dems in smaller area wise but denser populated areas they have fewer representatives and districts and e;ectoral votes.... Duh!! I just can't believe it took the dems so long to figure this our and figure out what the fascists were up to all along. They have a 50 year plan, we just try to get through the week.....
Doubt you'll find any relief in courts. Here in Illinois, the controlling party, or "rats" as you call them, have made an art form of re-districting. Some of the silliest districts you've ever seen. With a district extending down a highway meridian for many miles, just to include a residence that puts two incumbants of the same party together.
As for taxation without representation, these same clowns used their power in a lame duck session 2 years ago to pass a 60% state income tax increase. And, they have a pension system that allows a Union Rep to be appointed to a job for several weeks, then go on Union Leave for 30 years and draw full pensions from both the Union and the government.
Yes- these "rats" have no conscience.
so?
just saying...
So, we have a census to determine representation, and that filters down to getting skewed representation. The last time we had a fair society was on the heels of a depression and a war. We've had a near depression and too many wars to count. I know if I keep typing, I'll figure it out ...
They have crossed the line from political expediency and tactics to constitutional treason.
If you are in a democratic republic and you are AGAINST the popular vote, you are neither a democrat or a republican.
Hear Here!!!!!
Treason??? Why doesn't Eric Holder bring charges and prosecute? The only two possibilities are that Holder and Obama are incompetent,... or,... you are full of beans... Hear Here!!!!
But wouldn't it be a dandy idea for Texas?
Yeah Dallas Houston and Galviston areas would go Dem. But the rest of the state is Republican and since this is a "States Issue" and the majority of state districts in Texas are Republicans don't expect it to come up. (Think Texans for a Republican Majority) This was kind of the field test for such tactics... Also remember a few Dems. who fled to Arizona or was it New Mexico to avoid a vote on the new district map?
Mnnnn, if the rules don't work for you----change the rules. It may be time to end the Electoral College.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
It's time to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill would do that.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
This is frightening. If we don't stay awake and do something about this before it's too late, 2012 will just be a speed bump on the road to a complete Republican coup of our government.
Republican Coup.....please check history. And the Dems are still at it today. Can you say wake up. http://www.humanevents.com/2006/06/06/a-democratic-party-coup/
And please read this and "google" additional information of the Democrats coup d'état! Not saying they aren't all crooks....cause they are. The current Administration is the best example ever.
You need to get your 'information" from someplace other than a well known conservative conspiracy generator with writers that have included Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, New Gingrich, and Oliver North, as well as conservative celebrities such as Ted Nugent, Chuck Norris, Neil McCabe and Pat Sajak. I mean really, Human Events? Are you still waiting for the North American Union with it's NAFTA Superhighway?
Didn't see Rachel and her fans object to this "gerrymandering" in VA. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Looks like "treason" is rampant. Or some liberals just bias? Oh as for the comment from Frank; "If this all fail we libs need to demand our assault riffles and start using them to defend our constitution from the domestic enemies"!!!! Sorry Frank but Obama is going to take away your assault rifle so forget that idea. As for the comments on the Electoral College:
Interesting that this is all about the evil Republicans..Wonder if it would be so if the evil ones had won....(instead of the MSNBC; messiah Obama, saviour and liberator of the people)... Of course, we wouldn't be talking much because the "Riots" from the left would be front page news. However, let us think for a moment.
Americans don’t technically vote for a president. We only vote for electors, and it is ultimately these electors who vote for the president. We assume the electors will vote for the candidate they claim to support, but there is no guarantee they will. Technically, many electors have the legal autonomy to go rogue. They can vote for a different candidate or no candidate. Theoretically, a handful of individuals no one has ever heard of could ignore the vote and decide to throw the outcome however they want.
The electoral college makes a mockery of the idea of one man, one vote. The way electoral votes are distributed, the votes cast by people who just happen to live in lower-population states are worth way more than the votes cast by people who live in high-population states. As a result, a vote in California is worth less than a third of what a vote in Wyoming is. While this was a problem even at its design, the difference in states’ population was dramatically smaller when the Constitution was written. Almost all states give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality in the state, and most states are safely for one camp or the other. As a result, candidates ignore the majority of states and voters to only focus on a handful of swing states. This completely distorts the focus of the campaign and the issues fought over. The irony of the Electoral College is that, were it not written into the Constitution, its unequal distribution of voter power would be judged, by the highest court in the land … unconstitutional.
You may remember in 2000, it is not who wins the popular vote who becomes President. It is the person with the most electoral votes. This was brought home by the
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-949">Bush v Gore and the Supreme Court decision. Florida was the big state of hope in that year.think that was 537 vote least we forget; Clinton won a gigantic 370-168 electoral vote majority and became president, despite having won only 43 percent of the popular vote.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-949">
Those of you in all-Democrat-all-the-time states -- Illinois (20), California (55), New York (29) -- understand fully why we rarely see the candidates or their ads. You have been written off, or maybe you should say, automatically put in Obama (Democrat)electoral vote count column. (Which of course you probably like!) You don’t really get a say in your state elections. It means that these states, and their respective electoral college votes, are already in the bag for the Democrats. (JOY) When adding three more states to the mix which usually go to the Democrats -- (Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14) -- Obama (Democrat) has an electoral count vote total of 139 before the election is even held. (DAMN that sounds fair...right?) From there on it’s all up for grabs, which is why everyone is watchs the ‘swing’ states of Ohio (18), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Florida (29). These states have the next level of electoral votes that can lead to a win. Texas, with its 38 votes, has been purposely left out here because the state usually goes Republican. (Damn..they get one State.)This electoral system needs to be shaken up. Relying on the I-40 corridor in Central Florida and the vote share in Cincinnati and Cleveland and the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia to choose a President, at the expense of the rest of the country, is madness. If the Electoral College is passe and the winner-take-all popular vote could create national chaos, is there a workable compromise? Yes, Under the Constitution, states have the freedom to decide how their Electoral College votes are allocated. The primaries and caucuses are an example. Each state has its own rules for voting, and state party systems decide how delegates are divided. In fact, two states -- Nebraska and Maine -- use an alternative system of allocating their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Electoral College voters in these states are required by law to follow the popular vote within their district, rather than the statewide popular vote. Interestingly, neither Maine nor Nebraska has ever had to split its electoral votes, since statewide winners in a single party have consistently swept all of the states' districts during elections. (NOT a problem for Democrats you understand...) But, it is a move in the right direction. Just saying...get real Rachel Maddow and fans. Your crap is getting old.
Obama won Nebraska 2 in 2008.
Get rid of the electoral colleges. You let a few people's vote weigh more than others. Ohio has gone Republican before 2000 and 2004 and may again in the future. No more dirty tricks. Let the people say!!! End the electoral college completely!!!
How long can the will of 49% represent 51% before the 51% just start shooting the 49%? Not a bad idea bet the 49% wouldn't like it much.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
It is obvious that the republicans can't win with ideas or a platform that is not insane and have for quite some time resorted to hysteria, division, lies and misdeeds to scare the voters. Seeing in the last election that this has not been working so well for them they now intend to put a halt to democracy not only in the voting booth but also by way of tallying votes.
There is no bottom to their barrel of disgusting tactics and I hope that every person who becomes aware of this latest attempt to grab power will write their republican representative and let them know that we are wise to their upcoming tricks and will not stand for it.
I hope that there is some federal law that can stop this from happening because here in Wisconsin all of our congressional leadership is now run by the republicans who will not listen to the people.
Please post the information that Ms. Maddow shared on this blog far and wide and stop this before it takes hold.
Time to get this information out far and wide and put a stop to it before it takes hold. I hope that everyone will write to their republican legislators and let them know that we are wise to their trickery and will not stand for it.
They are so evil
Forgot the "gerrymandering" link for Virginia..http://redstatevirginia.com/2011/04/virginia-democrats-gerrymandering-plan/
Maybe Obama will issue yet another Executive Order and right all the wrongs...we certainly don't need the Constitution with him in Office. Who the hell needs three branches of the U.S. government anyway? http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/legbranch.htm
ok, so I hear this and I get really upset. but that doesn't help much. what can we do? how do we prevent this from happening?
I'm right there with you. I'm scared this will happen. I live in Virginia, which is one of those states. I can call my Congressman and Senators but, oh wait, they're Democrat minorities in the state. They won't get anything done. We could try to pass a law at a federal level, but that won't happen either.
We're done. This is going to happen, there are no impediments to this happening, and the Democrats are going to lose. They'll lose every race from here on out. Our country is going to be run by backwards Conservative principles that want to drag us kicking and screaming into the 18th century again.
Support the National Popular Vote bill. It would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
There is a very important purpose behind our congressional election scheme. The Senate reflects provincial interests, hence two senators per state, as a check on majoritorial tyrannical tyraernary. Those old guys were pretty smart.
The house was meant reflects majority interests which, with some checks, is the foundation of our democracy.
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would never approve of an house electoral scheme that ends majority interests in favors a minority.
Really yelmik? Ever heard of Bush V. Gore?
I seem to remember reading about something like this before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948