Associated Press
Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R)
When it comes to the Republican strategy of rigging the electoral college by changing the way some states distribute electoral votes, the focus has been on six states: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. There's no great mystery as to why: the point is to find states that tend to vote "blue" in presidential elections, but are nevertheless led by GOP policymakers at the state level. These six obviously fit the bill.
But it looks like we can probably cross one of these states off the list.
... Florida, the largest swing state, won't go along with changing the Electoral College if Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford has any say (and he has a major say).
"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and the beat us in the fourth," Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better. [...]
Not only is Weatherford opposed to the idea, fellow Republican and Florida Senate President Don Gaetz is decidedly cool to it.
With the GOP leader in both chambers of the state legislature opposed to the idea, it's probably a safe bet that it's not going anywhere.
But pay particular attention to Weatherford's reasoning, because it's important. As he sees it, the only reason a state would choose to play this game is if Republicans assume they'll keep losing at the presidential election -- and on this, Weatherford is absolutely correct.
We talked about this yesterday with Virginia -- if Republicans thought they had a credible shot at winning the state in future elections, they'd have no incentive to rig the way electoral votes are allocated. Why would the GOP run the risk of giving the Democratic candidate some votes when they can try to win the state and give the Democrat nothing?
Florida is the perfect example of this dynamic because it's the nation's largest and most competitive swing state. President Obama won the Sunshine State last year by less than one percentage point, and as recently as 2004, George W. Bush won it by five percentage points. In all likelihood, it will remain one of the most -- if not the most -- important electoral battlegrounds in the country for many years to come.
For the state GOP to go along with the election-rigging scheme, Republicans would have to assume that they're no longer in a position to seriously compete in a state they just lost by 0.8%, so they'll have to start cheating.
From a GOP perspective, that would be crazy, and Weatherford and Gaetz are right to be skeptical. And given this, it looks like the list of states open to this democracy-crushing scheme is shrinking from six to five.
Leave a Comment:
Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better.
Guess the GOP will be crossing him off the 2016 list.
The Republican Party has given some serious thought to our current situation:
After 200 plus years of "Democracy" we are in a sad state, indeed.
As Mr. Laurel said to Mr. Hardy, "This is a fine mess you got us in!"
So, perhaps we need to go back to the traditional, conservative form of government that was the norm for several thousand years. That is to say, rule by Old, White, Men.
Ditto ...
Only it was Mr. Hardy who said it to Mr. Laurel, wasn't it?
Modern day Laurel and Hardy. Chris Christie and Rick Scott.
Here is the biggest pile of sore losers we have ever seen assembled. But far worse than mere moping, the bitter and fairly unhinged reaction of Republicans to their sound drubbing in this last election is a direct threat to the kind of democracy that this great nation was founded upon. How absurd that the party of "traditional" values and that wrap themselves in the Constitution would blow up the system created by our founders and tailor it solely for their own political gain. What happened to the GOP's promise to reach out more to minorities and women voters? Guess they realized changing their radical and hate-filled policy stripes is too darn hards. These plans to rig future elections are the single greatest danger to American freedom since World War II. - progressive
In order to reach out you have to change your message. The new GOP is clinging to their ideology as if their lives depended on it. They view it as "If the square peg won't go in the round hole, just keep hitting it harder." They hope sheer will can change the demographic landscape. I wonder if the Neanderthals saw their extinction coming....
From a GOP perspective, that would be crazy, and Weatherford and Gaetz are right to be skeptical.
I believe that, had this been in place in Florida in 2000, Gore would have won the election.
Gore did win the election in 2000 - but the SCOTUS appointed Bush the younger anyway...
Gore did win the Election.
Thanks guys - I was totally unaware of that.
Thank heavens Gore did not win. Talk about a greedy, pocket-lining, let me be rich at any cost even if I help a terrorist supporting media corporation before the taxes change and take more of my money kind of guy! He promotes his green agenda because it has made him filthy rich. He is the ultimate hypocrite! While he wants all of us to make sacrifices for the good of the earth, he flies around in huge jets and has huge, energy guzzling mansions.
hhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htmttp://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html
It is always interesting to hear from the sweet , and innocent villagers whose homes and hearths are safe from the ravages of mythological beasts and demons . However the tunes are played , the soothing sounds for the innocent . The only perspective that weighs in views the happy , to happen , and wide stance's , the rules still devolve to Chicken Securities headed by the Fox teams of uninterested but acutely keyed , and hungry , actors .
We listen to the the same music but wait until the Rush is over and Rupert renders the tendency in language that doesn't pander to reason or rhyme , but to the heart and soul of relentless pounding fear . The dependable abattoir of community , Rupert Murdoch , Rush Limbaugh , still just dripping with the guts they take to suspend your interest humanity , and focus on guts .
what ??? .............................
Lets wait for the real leaders of our grand old parties governing principles thoughts , before we listen to the pre apologetic statements from mere elected officials .
Steve, do you have any indication that President Obama, the AG or state democrats are trying to fight this?
Abolish the Electoral College.
It was always a kluge and now it's a hazard .
Ms. Maddow, we need your help.
In an effort to combat the current attempts to rig the presidential elections in these states, I created a petition at whitehouse.gov requesting the President publically support a constitutional amendment preserving the integrity of the popular vote. Please help me make this petition go viral - We need at least 100,000 signatures to force the administration to respond.
We cannot allow our franchise to be marginalized by politics; we must not stand idle while legislative maneuvers threaten the very stability of our democratic way of life. We must unite, with one voice, and demand that immediate steps be taken. Every citizen, whether Democrat or Republican has a responsibility to defend our franchise. This is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue.
My reach is limited... please help me promote this petition and enact change before it is too late.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/publically-support-constitutional-amendment-preserving-integrity-popular-vote/sW8jlWCp
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.
Instead, The National Popular Vote bill, that would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), is 49% of the way to go into effect.
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
One of the reasons why the Electoral College has remained in effect for all of these years is because it is assumed that all of the swing states benefit so greatly from the attention and advertising dollars, that no politician from these states would advocate eliminating it. However, if the state republicans are willing to sacrifice the attention and money that comes from these contests, then they can not logically oppose shifting to a popular vote, at least not on those grounds. This could be a unique opportunity to push for the elimination of the Electoral College. Sign the petition at:
http://wh.gov/yd76
Spread the word. Let's make this the first petition to hit the new threshold of 100k signatures. Thank You.
t was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted "separate but equal".
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said "Segregation Forever".
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. — and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party – most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house @!$%#".
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice — who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats — an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion.
You're funny. You do kids' parties? Angry, nihilistic kids' parties?
more importantly who the hell cares. Yes Democrats did things in the past that I don't agree with and continue to do so. How that changes Republicans attempting to rig the game now I fail to see. Do we need to put a list out there of all the bad things done by republicans over the years and compare "length" (wait I think I missed the point of your list).
It was Democrats who changed their views and became accepting of everyone an entire generation ago. What excuse do the Republicans have for the way they behave in this day and age?
Democrats began calling for civil rights in the 1920's when Al Smith was running as a candidate. He came within one vote of getting it into the party platform. That was happening while Republicans were passing immigration quotas in response to the massive numbers of Italians coming into the country.
As a Floridian, I am pleasantly surprised to hear such logical words from our Republican leadership. Perhaps there is hope for our state!
If the small states, mostly in the center of the country are to have any voice at all, the electoral college must remain in tact. Otherwise the only voices heard in the elections are on the coasts. The voters in the heartland have very little say as it is. A popular vote would lead us to large state rule. But, having said that, I think the electoral college could be tweaked. There were many states where the presidential election results were extremely close. Perhaps it would be more representative if the electoral votes of those states were split, like in NE, to vote more closely with their states wishes. My state was not close, but if I lived in a state that was close, I would want my vote to mean something, not given to someone that I oppose vehemently. The election might have been much different if the electoral college was a representation of each states vote.
What? The voters in the heartland have a disproportionately large voice in our country, beginning with the 2 Senate seats each state has.
In other words, you disapprove of democracy in favor of rule by a minority.
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored.
In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district method. Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote.com
Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
I think sometimes we don't give individual Republicans enough credit. Sure it's possible the only reason Florida has decided to not change the electoral college distribution is because of a belief they can still win the state. However, we need to sometimes not think of Republicans as an institution/party and rather as a collection of individuals. I firmly believe there are many many republicans especially at the state level who got into politics out of a genuine desire to help the public and a belief that conservative principles are the best way to accomplish that. I think what we're seeing in some of the recent rhetoric out of VA and now FL is those voices who see this for what it truly is and are truly uncomfortable with it.
We tend to assume that the Republicans are in constant lock step with orders from above and neglect to realize that they (like most Americans) are humans with their own beliefs about fair play and justice. I think we're finally seeing some willingness of those people to step up when they see something they don't like because the strangle hold of the tea party and extreme conservatism is weakening a bit.
Of course I could be wrong but I like to believe that there are still many people out there who are in public service for the right reasons and don't want to rig the game solely for power at the expense of their principles.
Weatherford doesn't seem to get it. I don't have faith that he won't be made to get it.
If the GOP does this in OH, WI, PA, FL, VA, MI, as well as IA and MO, it will be impossible for a Democrat to win the electoral college.
In the most gerrymandered states (OH, WI, PA, MI) a Democrat would need upwards of 70% of the vote to get more than a quarter of the electors.
I know my liberal friends are calling "Republican cheating", but three points (a) the electoral college system was established from the beginning to favor vote by jurisdictions over popular vote (b) the small swing state of Maine already uses this distribution system and has survived legal challenge of it (c) if Romney had won Ohio by a tiny majority, would you feel it fair to give him ALL of Ohio's electoral votes as is the current system? One more point...you can forget about a constitutional amendment..too difficult. It is much MUCH easier for one state legislature to change the rules for its own state. Don't be surprised if a couple of states make this quietly happen. It has already happened in Maine!
Although it could fix the problem, a constitutional amendment is highly unlikely. The electoral college was purposely established to favor jurisdictional control over popular control. Maine already apportions electors according to districts and this has not been overturned by legal challenge. It appears that a state like Virginia could easily pass such legislation. Just because the example in the article shows how Republicans could gain more electoral votes with less popular vote, the opposite is obviously true too. I get that Reps only want to change those states that will help them win. I suppose the Dems may have to follow suit in blue states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
The bill uses the power given to each state 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 been by state legislative action.
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
Good for Weatherford. This gives me a bit of hope that there are still some sane Republicans left.
Even if the GOP could win some more elections by implementing these schemes, I would hope that shame will play a big role in discouraging it. If you go along with this, you're basically admitting: I am a loser, I am a punk, I can't win fair and square so I'm going to change the rules. I know there is no shortage of politicians without shame, but hopefully there are enough who would be too embarrassed to portray themselves in this light.
I put 3 articels on my facebook and a plug for your show and Laurence. My mind thanks me when I'm a constant viewer. Thanks to you both.
Wow a Republican in the Florida State House actually is using his mind instead of allowing the Tea Party to guide him by the nose. I am shocked. I live in Florida and when I say I am shocked by this, you better believe it!!! These Tea Party people will make this guy pay in his next election. I have seen them at work, and it is really scary. I hope more Florida State Reps and Senators think this through and leave it alone. They already gerrymandered us to death down here. I hope there are at least some RepubliCONS we can trust. But, I doubt it.