We've been keeping a close eye on state Republican officials hoping to rig electoral-vote distribution so that only GOP candidates are able to be elected president. As Rachel noted on the show last night, there are several states considering election-rigging schemes -- Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania -- but Virginia is the first to advance an actual plan.
Dave Weigel had a terrific report yesterday afternoon on the efforts of Virginia Republicans, noting that if the preferred GOP system had been in place last year, President Obama would have defeated Mitt Romney by 150,000 votes, but when it came time to distribute electoral votes, Romney would have won nine votes to Obama's four. Or put another way, the Democrat would win 51% of the popular vote, but 30% of the electoral-college vote. It is, quite obviously, a plan "designed to disenfranchise Democrats," Weigel concluded.
Jamelle Bouie highlighted a detail that would be hilarious were it not so offensive: the bill's sponsor, Republican Senator Charles W. "Bill" Carrico, "says the change is necessary because Virginia's urbanized areas can outvote rural regions, weakening their political strength." Got that? Virginia Republicans feel the need to rig democracy in their favor because they think it's unfair that there are more Democratic voters -- so the GOP needs to level the playing field.
Eric Kleefeld added last night, "The openly stated goal of GOP electoral bills is to win while getting fewer votes. Think about that."
That's good advice -- I desperately hope the political world takes the time to really think about that. I know it's not as gripping as whether a pop star sang the National Anthem on Sunday or Monday, or the latest Benghazi conspiracy theory, but we're quickly approaching a crisis the establishment is not yet prepared to acknowledge.
Republican policymakers are looking ahead, concluding that they're likely to lose future elections, and moving forward on plans to ensure they get power even when the American people don't vote for them. That may sound insane, but that's the plan on the table.
And just to reiterate a point from several weeks ago, the fact that this is happening in Virginia, of all places, warrants special attention.
Let's put it this way: at least in Pennsylvania the GOP scheme is understandable, albeit disgusting. It's historically been a competitive swing state, but in six of the last six elections, the Democratic presidential candidate has won, usually pretty easily. With this in mind, it stands to reason that Keystone State Republicans would conclude, "Our candidate probably isn't going to win statewide anytime soon, but if we rig electoral-vote allocation, we can still help our guy win the election."
But Virginia is a very different political environment. In the last 60 years, only two Democratic presidential candidates have won the commonwealth: LBJ in his 1964 landslide and Barack Obama. That's it. Even Bill Clinton lost the state twice, and he was very competitive throughout the South in both of his races.
If you're a Virginia Republican official who believes the state will soon revert to form and start voting GOP again, changing the way Virginia distributes electoral votes doesn't make sense -- it creates a huge risk of helping the other side. Indeed, had this idea been in place in the commonwealth in recent elections, Virginia would have awarded several electoral votes to Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore, instead of none.
The only reason Virginia Republicans would even consider an idea like this is if they assume the state is slowly slipping away from them. By pushing this idea, folks like Carrico are suggesting they expect Democrats to be in a position to win the state for the indefinite future.
And since the will of the voters and the consent of the governed are now antiquated concepts that Republicans no longer value, the democracy-crushing scheme continues to move forward.
Leave a Comment:
"Politics ain't beanbag"
No, it is a filthy, disgusting, cut-throat business, with no room for naive dilettantes.
Republicans have long known this, Democrats have yet to learn.
Hope and Change vs Slash and Burn.
does anyone remember where we put the torches and pitchforks? or better yet the hammers and nails?
We still have liberal pundits and blog writers who still think Republicans won't go through with it because it's just too nauseating even for nauseating Republicans. These sort of liberal people are stupid and dangerous and part of the reason we are where we are. They simply don't understand the vicious mean-spiritedness that is what Republicans are.
"Democrats have yet to learn."
No. Democrats have yet to remember. LBJ anyone?
Disgusted: I honestly have not seen one single pundit or blog writer who has downplayed this in any way. If anyone has reached "stupid or dangerous", by all means please name them, because to reach that level there must be a paper trail, right? Not mentioned by anyone is the swing state domination of Obamas campaign and what impact that organization will bring to the table. Remember, these state officials will be on ballots in 2014, so it will be interesting if they go for this.
Poli means many and tics are blood-sucking creatures.
We need to work to get states with the remaining needed 138 electoral votes to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
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 like the idea. Ultimately, a perfect world to me would be a system without any political party's. Elect the individual based on their own ideas and vision. House and Senate leaders elected by all members, not by majority party. Less division, more actual legislation, loyalty to constituents instead of party. For President? elect the individual instead of the party. Hell yeah! I am going to look at this and learn more.
Colbert has picked up on this story.
In today's culture being ridiculed and made fun of may carry more weight than just being reported on in the 'liberal media'.
Not if you don't have a sense of humor.
Tom DeLay "The Hammer" picked up on Colbert's righteous blather , quite publicly at one point . Colbert mugged that in his earnest appreciation .
Oops! There goes democracy.
Not with a bang but a whimper.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
― George Orwell
If anyone thinks this isn't the most important political news of the decade, think President Rand Paul. He's the T-party darling and if they get the election rigged, we might actually see that. The Koch money would back him.
If that doesn't incline one toward the popular vote, I'll bet President Gore wouldn't have led us into two unfunded wars and tanked the economy.
Authoritarians unmasked.
"Eric Kleefeld added last night, "The openly stated goal of GOP electoral bills is to win while getting fewer votes. Think about that."
Are we allowed to call the Republicans fascists, commies or socialists now!
So if Gore had gotten his two votes in Virginia, Presto...different story.
Why hasn't any of Rachel's reporting included the fact that there are two states. Maine and Nebraska, that already allocate their electoral college votes based on the results in their congressional districts? If she finds that process so abhorrent, why is she letting Maine and Nebraska off the hook? Could it be because they have so few electoral college votes that they can't effect the results?
I'll believe her outrage for this "vote rigging" process when she shows some outrage for those states that are already doing it.
I don't approve of this process either. But, fair is fair, if you are going to call out those states considering the change, you must also call out those states already doing it. Otherwise it appears as though the only reason you care is that it may affect the outcome in a way you don't like.
Re: #5
Maine and Nebraska have been mentioned.
They haven't gotten as much attention because, as you said, they would not have affected the result.
If it were the Democrats that were doing this, would the Republicans go along with it? NO, because it is not fair and it is undemocratic.
Do you or do you not consider this vote rigging?
Do you or do you not consider that vote rigging has ANY place in our political system?
I think it is despicable and evidence that the Republicans are not interested in fairness and want to institute a totalitarian regime - with themselves in charge of course.
You might have paid attention during the recent elections.
As it happens, since neither Maine nor Nebraska have much in the way of EC votes and the practice goes back a long way, it's not particularly noteworthy. Those States had their reasons at the time and it wasn't to rig elections.
This time around, the whole plan is nakedly partisan with the intent to rig the election results.
Yes, and besides, it is really only offensive when it is combine with gerrymandered House districts. If the districts are not gerrymandered then what is the problem with this?
Yes, I consider this to be vote-rigging. And, I don't believe it has any place in our political system. Therefore, I don't believe it has any place in either Maine or Nebraska. You cannot believably say this has no place in Virginia, Michigan, etc and also believe it should be allowed in Maine and Nebraska. This is vote-rigging. And, it doesn't become less so by being done in a small state. No one can provide a valid reason for allowing this in Maine and Nebraska while not allowing it elsewhere.
Good god. Somebody is outraged that outrage hasn't been directed at EVERY nook and cranny it deserves. Except when Maine and Nebraska did it, it wasn't for the express intent of making the process anti-democratic. The current shenanigans are nothing but that: ensuring that no-matter how badly Republicans get their asses handed to them, they still win. That wasn't Maine's and Nebraska's original intent and they are so small that it would almost never be the result.
Here's the deal: we are living the failure of the Constitution. Understand that.
NCMan, I agree that it should be an all-or-nothing thing not some states do it one way and some another. But there are several reasons Maine and Nebraska haven't gotten the publicity, and they are pretty good reasons (and actually, I do recall it being somewhat controversial when they first did it, too).
One, ME and NE were not pieces in a larger narrative. The new moves are part and parcel of other voter suppression efforts. That is, there is no indication that ME and NE were being done with quite the malice that the VA, PA, MI efforts are. The nefariousness makes the story more potent and important.
Two, the specific plans in VA and PA involve some formulas specifically designed to get results contrary to public opinion, particularly when combined with gerrymandered districts. As the article says, the Virginia results would have turned the popular vote on its head. That is not the case in ME and NE: in 2008, McCain won the popular vote by a large margin and he got all of the EVs except one. This year it appeared there was a chance that Romney would get one EV in ME; again, that would have paralleled the popular vote. The problem is when the distribution frustrates the popular vote -- and it is much more newsworthy.
Posters keep claiming that Maine and Nebraska had legitimate reasons for instituting this process. But, no one has stated what those legitimate reasons were. Some of you have even stated that without gerrymandering, this new process would be acceptable. Or, as long as the popular vote winner still got a majority of electoral college votes for a state (not winner take all) it would still be OK. So, some of you are suggesting that if a candidate won 60% of the vote in VA, it would be fine if that candidate received only 60% of the electoral college votes for VA. This would work if, and only if, it were done in ALL 50 states, effectively changing our system from electoral college to national popular vote.
Probably because it's not of great import to care about the itch you had before you noticed the bear running toward you. Good grief.
Yes, but my asking for the reasons why Maine and Nebraska get a pass on this is because there would be no reason that VA, PA, MI etc wouldn't be able to claim the EXACT same reasons for doing it that Maine and Nebraska used. Everyone seems happy to let Maine and Nebraska do this. So, they should be happy to let the others claim the same reasoning.
This is all sounding like "Not in My Backyard" reasoning. Everyone seems fine with the behavior as long as it doesn't hit too close to home and affect them personally.
Well obviously this is not important because they have so few electoral votes , it's kind of a wash for both parties
Maine started doing this in 1972, Nebraska in 1992. In both cases, the debate centered on races where there were more than two candidates with a legitimate chance to win the state's electoral votes. In 1972, George Wallace ran and the thought was that someone could capture the entire pot of electoral votes with as little as 34% of the vote. In 1992, Ross Perot was leading in many polls as late as July. Legislatures in both states thought that allocating electoral votes by district would result in a more accurate distribution than would occur under a winner-take-all system.
As several people have noted, neither state did this in an attempt to cheat one party out of the electoral votes it should receive based on its performance at the polls.
Because Maine and Nebraska are not part of the "Reince Preibus plan." Preibus is specifically targeting states that voted for Obama as President but have Republican legislatures and governors. Nebraska votes Republican already. But something tells me you kinda knew that.
So glad that you are following this story. Would love it if you'd simultaneously give a high profile presentation of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which you are undoubtedly familiar with. It's an idea whose time has clearly come. And it's already halfway to being implemented.
The National Popular Vote 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.
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.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Well, what else are they going to do when the overall numbers slide against them? This 51% vote for 30% representation ratio should be enough to keep Republicans in power until the popular vote margin exceeds 20% nationwide. It's been a very long time since things were that one-sided, so they should be able to keep them from upsetting the natural order for a long, long time.
Of course, when the day finally comes that this stops working, the payback is going to spectacularly ugly. Or it will, unless the Right can make even more rules changes in the meantime such as repeal of the Voting Rights Act and other mechanisms for selective disenfranchisement (imprisoning more of them might be a good plan -- it's already in practice and could be extended.)
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't also set up Senatorial districts. As far as the Constitution is concerned, as long as both districts have about the same population the Roberts Court should be fine with the plan.
To me Virginia is particularly interesting since they are neither fully red nor blue. If this had been in effect in 2000, Al Gore would have been President.
Since Virginia's voting changes currently have to go to the Justice Department for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, I'd be curious to see what Justice would do. Awarding the 2 extra electoral college votes to the winner of the most districts and not the popular vote winner seems to both violate the concept of 1 person , 1 vote as well as minority voting rights under the Voting Rights Act.
Oh, yeah, the preclearance requirement is going before the Supreme Court so that could be moot. Even if the preclearance requirement is removed the changes could be legally challenged under the Voting Rights Act. If would be interesting to know if there were legal challenges to the changes in either of the two states that have already switched to this method.
I am reminded of a religious lesson imparted to me as a child , dimly . The point which I argued against was that the patriarch of the Jews had too many soldiers so the "Lord" made plain to him that the victory was not to be seen through men , but through "Him" . One of the trials I dimly recall was to drink from the river . The soldiers who put their faces in the water and then satisfied themselves were dismissed . The one who cupped their hands and drank were kept .
I am reminded of this tale thinking of Old Virginia last night , and this morning . It is of Old Testament stuff , the fire and brimstone natural rape stars of the "You are servants of your husbands , as they are servants of mine" affinity they seem to drift towards . Recalling lines suggesting only their husbands are servants of the "Lord" , a reasoning which magically replaces equality with patriarchal and mythical hierarchies . Stern stuff the patriarchs from the battle of Jericho suffered themselves to believe , and the "conservative" (in name only) delude themselves in believing they represent as a similar "Godly" fear .
So if these fire and brimstone right wingers believe in the same force that was so jealous of its power that it would strip itself of natural advantages , so it would be seen not as a human victory but a magical one , does it mean the current crop of patriarchal bullies are sort of weak kneed , unbelieving of the magic ?
Not that it matters as a practical affair . This cowering behind ideas as removed from the place where decisions are made recalls a generations long criticism of Liberal politics being removed from right wing thinking , or magical reality . The need to express why defending the weak is sensible , and asking the able to contribute to the less able , is a favorite whipping post for the Old Testament aficionado's of might makes right , Right .
Cowering is the only memory of what all of us will see and hear from these brave chiselers . Just like a pet only hears his name not the price of the shoe he chewed .
Fine. So let's do away with the Electoral College and have have the election strictly on popular vote. Of course, the Republicans won't do that because they would be permanently out of power.
I think they're headed more to the idea of having the House of Representatives elect the President. They've been leaning Parliamentarian lately anyway.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.
On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."
Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote's National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressman John Buchanan (R–AL).
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
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
Tony #10,
That's why it's a good idea. Sooner the better.
Next up on the Virginia legislature's agenda:
The University of Virginia and Virginia Tech football teams haven't been able to win against the country's top college teams. So the Virginia legislature is going to pass a new law that makes touchdowns scored by Virginian college teams worth 12 points.
You may be surprised to learn Golf already employs a similar handicapping . I don't suspect you would get as many arguments as you might imagine .
Now that is funny .
There is a similar handicapping in the pointspreads for betting on games.
But when a team beats the point spread but still loses, the game doesn't count as a win for them.
classic...
So now your vote counts more than mine?
The practice we get in rigging the game by ceaseless efforts to monopolize markets provides all the blueprints needed for ventures of this sort .
Windows has not dominated the corporate office software market by virtue of its excellence for some little while now , that is if it ever did . The ceaseless efforts in monopolizing leaves us with an endless parade of the largest conglomerates handy at resisting government regulation , into adopting government regulation as a means test to winnow the competition .
With effective regulation only the biggest can manage to survive in competition , into the next phase of little or no competition .
Virginia can only change this by winning the House, Senate and Governor in 2014 - a tall order in a non-presidential year! There is no way to amend the Virginia constitution without either the participation of both houses of the legislature or a constitutional convention. At least some of the targeted states have the ability to change the constitution through direct participation.
Why can't they do this right now? They have the governor and the House. The Senate is a tie with the Lieutenant Gov, a republican, as the tie-breaker.
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.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
NCMan - I think MichMan is contending that to make this change then Virginia must amend it's state constitution. I have no knowledge if that it true or not.
In order to amend the Constitution in Virginia the measure has to pass two sessions of the legislature that have had an election between them (which Virginia has this fall). So I think he is stating that it must pass this year, and again next year. If it is an amendment to the Constitution then it also goes to a voter referendum after it has passed the legislature a second time. I don't think the Governor has to approve it but I could be wrong.
Frankly if it has to go to a voter referendum I can't see this passing. Can you imagine telling the majority of voters, who voted twice for Obama, that you want them to sign off on a scheme that would have only given him 4 of 13 Electoral College votes in an election he won.
How would this even be legal. What they are basically saying is that if you are a democrat voter there you aren't even 3/5ths of a person they would in fact be just over 1/2 a person. It is supposed to be 1 vote for 1 person so your voice can be heard. This is simply ridiculous and I am totally sick of this party it truly needs to die when this is how they are trying to destroy our democratic process.
It must be legal. They do it in both Maine and Nebraska.
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.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
Hey, don't go ragging on efforts by Republicans to rig the vote. They can't manufacture angry old white men fast enough to keep up. You can't expect them to reach out to women or people of color can you? They might lose all the the anti-abortion bigot vote better known as their base.
The problem for Republicans is this effort isn't going to alter the ultimate result of America's demographic change. In the end the party of angry old white men will become a small regional party.
This strategy should refocus the efforts of the Democratic party back to the states.
The real question for all of us to ponder is why are so many anti-abortion wingnuts elected to office at the state level?
In the long run, we're all dead. In the mean time, they can do astonishing amounts of damage to several generations (and for that matter, the world.)
Yeah, the payback is going to be a bitch when it comes. I'm atavistic enough to relish that thought, but not for long -- then I remember the price and no amount of "payback" is worth it. Besides, I don't thing the country that exacts that particular price is one I'd be proud of.
I believe the term for a system rigged to ensure a minority rules over the majority of the population is "apartheid." Particularly where, as here, there is an undeniable racial component to it -- specifically, rich old white guys unable to accept a more racially diverse country and clinging to power through anti-democratic means.
My suggestion would be to eliminate Congressional districts in the House races and have the Representatives of each state chosen by proportional representation.
And isn't this the Party that keeps referring to Obama as some kind of Tyrant, but yet they want to cheat the system to put their party in control. Isn't that the definition of Tyranny?
Uh, one man equals 2.5 well-placed votes in Repub world?
Congress needs a whole new mix of blood. The TEA-Republican's have held the economy in check to spite president Obama's attempts to get it started. TEA-Republican obstructionism, combative confrontation and scorched earth tactical methodologies were all ineffective back when Obama severely thumped Romney-Ryan. Grandstanding and gambling on the US economy is how they want to play instead of their jobs. Purchased by preceding Congress people, the Congress has failed to protect the middle class. Changing the rules to benefit their skewed notions and candidates. Here is another way the TEA-Republican leadership go about rigging elections to keep the nation as "White" as they can - Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus says that conservative lawmakers in blue states like Wisconsin “ought to be looking at” ways to rig the Electoral College system to tilt elections towards Republican candidates in a way that could have allowed presidential candidate Mitt Romney to win. If you can't win elections honestly, then you do not deserve to get elected. On a related note Did you know Social Security(F.I.C.A.) taxes are paid only on the first $100,110.00 of income(wages) and billionaires and millionaires do not pay any additional taxes over that first $100,110.00. Call your Senator and Representative and tell to change this so that Social Security and all the Social Programs can be fully funded into the future.
- http://www.house.gov/representatives/
- http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The 2014 Mid-term election is a-coming! "Sweep the HOUSE CLEAN....in 2014"
The Repubs don't want to "level the playing field." They want to tilt it in their direction....
Ok here is a novel idea that I haven't seen anyone mention...if we are going to try our hand at proportional representation why don't we just go whole hog and do it by party...not just Democrats and republicans but Greens and tea party, communists all of the crazy wacko people out there...think about that...it would lead to a multiparty system and a parliament like legislature...I honestly can't say that it would make things better or make us deal with our insanity problem but it would sure as hell be more entertaining...
That and can you imagine The President any President being put through "Question time"? Good lord
So, if I'm reading this correctly--when Carrico states that 'urbanized areas can outvote rural regions'--he's essentially recognizing that there are more people in smaller areas of land in urban areas. Are we going to go back to letting only the big landowners decide our elections then? That's what he is promoting. Hello, 17th and 18th century England. Feudal lords rejoice!
Of course, soon the "Repulsicans" will propose actually going back to pre-Civil War era methods and just let the "urban" voter count for 3/5 of a vote - like it said in the Constitution.
This move by Republicans is seriously scary. They are attempting to gerrymander the whole country and eliminate any concept of the democratic process. When elected officials start choosing who can and can't vote based on ideology and geography, that's very troubling. I keep thinking, "wow, Republicans definitely jumped the shark on this one." But then they do something even worse. This is unconstitutional and they ought to be thrown out of office for this.
Who knew that they've been right this whole time....We need to keep our assault weapons because one day we may need to fight our own government.
Although it should be unconstitutional, it is NOT. This process is already being used in both Maine and Nebraska.
First thing they need to do is stop including the prison populations for voting purposes. Inmates cannot vote in most states anyway and it's well known that most if not all prisons are located in Republican districts. If they're going to count inmates, then they need to be counted from the county/district where they resided before they were incarcerated!