Michigan Municipal League/Flickr
Michigan state Rep. Pete Lund (R)
The Republican plan to rig the 2016 presidential election is starting to hit some speed bumps. Leading GOP lawmakers in Florida have already balked, and support among Virginia Republicans is far from unanimous.
But the plan has always involved six states, and even if it falls apart in two, there are four others where it's very much in play. Take Michigan, for example (via Dave Weigel).
Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, confirmed this week he plans to reintroduce legislation that would award all but two of Michigan's 16 Electoral College votes according to congressional district results. The remaining two would go to the candidate winning the statewide majority.
"I believe it's more representative of the people -- closer to the actual vote," said Lund, who proposed a similar bill in 2012. "It got no traction last year. There were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take (electoral) votes from him."
That's a pretty amazing quote. In fact, it's practically a confession. Republicans in the Wolverine State would have rigged the election, but didn't bother because they thought they might defeat President Obama without cheating. But now that Obama won, it's time to give cheating another try.
But don't worry, this is about making a system "more representative of the people." Didn't he just admit otherwise -- in the same paragraph?
As for making the results "closer to the actual vote," under the election-rigging scheme, Mitt Romney would have lost most of the votes, but won most of the electoral votes. I'm not sure how Pete Lund defines "closer," but it's not a definition I'm familiar with.
Leave a Comment:
How is gerrymandering even legal? Districts should require unanimous agreement before their lines are drawn, and the process should be speedy. Dems and the GOP getting on the same page is like being a teacher in kindergarten trying to get kids to to work together -only the kindergarteners eventually do.
Americans, how did we let things come to this?
It's called political faction, now represented by the two party brands, but not so simply constructed! Each brand is a big tent of factions, and for the Republican brand, the Koch Bros. faction is calling the shots! As such, Republicans are engaging in civic government as if they're playing for Vince Lombardy, and not working on behalf of the American Middle Class!
Gerrymandering is permitted as a consequence of elections, and the desire for the incumbent to remain in office as long as possible! It's something that shocked and stunned at least one of our Founding Framers, one John Adams! -Kevo
Why not send this sneaky cheater an email and let him know we are watching him. His email address is: PeteLund@house.mi.gov
Thanks, Delaware. Done! ;-)
By becoming too complacent. Google ALEC ( funded by the koch bros.) PBS Bill Moyers had a great documentary on this. It is a blatant attempt to steal the elections from the state houses. I think the original plan was the rigging/ voter suppression of the National election to take the executive branch , and then from the bottom up ( states up) to take over the congress. It is an attempt at total control of our government. It is a concerted effort by the RNC and billionaire buyers to run the table , so to speak, and take over the government. We can not let that happen. Vote straight Dem tickets from city level through the states and national elections.
I agree with most everything you said there, Linda. By organizing quietly around ALEC and using its boilerplate legislation, certain stealth interests are attempting a quiet coup in this country.
My only quibble is with voting the straight Democratic ticket as the answer. While I think that most Dem candidates will give us better democratic governance, I also think that being informed and vocal about issues is the best line of defense against these marauders.
Maybe he was talking about the white vote.
They have a new definition for democracy: "I win no matter how the people vote".
Or heads I win, tails you lose.
It's the old Soviet-style aparatchik. We hold an election, but I really know who is going to win. We've stacked the decks in "the best interests of the people". The latest version still exists in the "new" Russia.
Remember folks, these voter ID and voter rigging schemes are not happening in a vacuum, the GOP take their cues from their puppet masters that reside in the shadows that will benefit from destroying our democracy for their control and power....ALEC! http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Democracy,_Voter_Rights,_and_Federal_Power
I REALLY would like someone to tell us the good side of all of this. You know, that's it's unlikely to be held legal because . . .
The only way that I can see around this is the movement to get rid of the electoral college entirely. That way the vote would be what the vote for a President should be. Someone who represents ALL Americans instead of this inane focus on the three guys from Iowa who might swing an election.
By the logic that's going around right now in these states, what's to keep them from implementing the SAME laws as it relates to the election of US Senators?
Exactly. Dorks like Peter Lund whine about how the electoral college disenfranchises people, and then they substitute the exact same program at a lower level. The only way is to dump the electoral college and chose the president by popular vote.
Like most reasons that repubs give for what they do, this one doesn't pass the smell test either.
Can we just have these people removed from office for "Treason against WE the PEOPLE or INSANITY"? Either one will do as these people have totally lost their minds!
Hey Lund, instead of results "closer to the actual votes", why not the actual votes, oh right, that elects Democrats far too often.
I believe Michigan and Ohio have voter referendums to overturn these laws. There will also be state elections between now and 2016. Dems have two shots at overturning the laws.
Michigan can get around the referendum by somehow making it a money bill. A referendum eliminated the law that allowed the governor to take over any municipality he wanted and replace all elected officials with his own people. Then the repubs passed it again as part of a tax bill. I'm sure they can find someway to attach voting bills to finances in order to stymie voter referendums.
Tough to do with gerrymandered districts. Gotta wrest control in a tilted election in order to avoid losing control in another tilted election. I think the odds are "tilted" against us.
Fortunately, Illinois has a constitution that prohibits bills with unrelated provisions. But I still think a smart and bold judge in Michigan can take the step of declaring the procedure of attaching a tax bill to another dealing with a fundamental US and most likely State right is unconstitutional under Michigan state law. If the state's Supreme Court agrees, then the legislature will no longer be able to do an end run around an initiative.
Only one problem with your scenario - the Republicans control the Supreme Court here, too.
Sometimes judges surprise people, e.g. Roberts on health care.
It's possible, but not usual.
BTW - Go Cubs Go!
Michigan Constitution allows for Emergency Implementation, meaning the day Gov Snider signs the bill it becomes law. Also if the law gets passes with a mininum amount of funding for any "cost incured" it automatically become a finance law and is therein unchangeable.
Dark days are here in Michigan. Like a lot of other rational folk, we will soon add to the states shrinking population.
Let's return to "original intent"- voting ONLY by white, land owning, males. . .
Actually, "white" replaced "land owning" in most states. In the 18th century most states had property qualifications for suffrage, but not racial qualifications -- middle and upper class blacks could vote as far south as North Carolina. Starting in the 1790s other states began introducing racial restrictions, in many cases adding those restrictions at the same time they dropped property qualifications. You saw a lot of that in the 1830s and 40s.
One of the fundamental lessons here (that the Michigan GOP is determined to reteach us) is that rights, if not zealously guarded, can be stripped away, and even the memory of those rights largely forgotten. After all, how many people today know that blacks could vote in North Carolina until 1835?
Well we can also have a national boycott against any states that pass it and the Democrats can make sure few federal contracts come their way. What a group of crooks the Repubs are. If you can't win the game, you change the rules. The only reason Florida didn't try it is that they are in such trouble with their attempts at voter suppression they simply didn't dare. Our Tea Party Governor is finished. He can not even get a 30% approval rating. Times they are a changing in Florida.
I say we start planning right now, so that there's a boycott in place and ready to go if this comes to pass.
As I understand it, the electoral college was devised when voters were exclusively white men who owned land. They would select wise people who lived in their state to gather and, among themselves, vote on which candidate would become the next president. It morphed along the way to the populace electing dedicated electoral representatives (you were voting actually for the person who promised to cast his ballot for the Democrat or Republican, as you instructed) rather than the presidential candidate themselves. At some point, even that was dropped.
Times have certainly changed. We now have women and people of color voting, of course, but that's not the important issue. The U.S. is a country of more than 300 million citizens, industry and technology have made this a much more complex place and I can't for the life of me see how the electoral college has any usefulness whatsoever. We don't do the same for governors, senators, congressmen, state legislators, etc.
So is this simply a matter of Business As Usual? Can we change that? Do we want to change that? If this is actually going to open a can of worms--one-man/one-vote or do some people count extra?--staying with the current system is next best, in my opinion. Therefore either leave it alone or change to eliminate the electoral college altogether and use popular vote, with each voter counting as one. None of this behind-the-curtain hijinx.
It used to be that voters would choose their elected officials. Now it's the elected officials choosing their voters.
I can't believe this is going on in this country and the attempt to do this isn't resulting in leading people away in hand cuffs. Getting rid of the electoral college would change the way campaigns are run. Now instead of swing states and the like, every vote actually does count and there can be no cheating.
It's not that he would have won without stacking the deck, it's that stacking the deck would have meant that he got fewer electoral college votes -- ones he might have needed.
I spent a few days getting outraged by this crap. Now, I'm just tired of being the only Democrat in town who shows up every two years and votes. I'll keep on voting, but if Dems continue acting as if the presidential election is the only one that matters, they deserve every sucker-punch the GOP wants to deliver. I'm done whining about it.
You're right, beejeez, and I think that 2010 was the wake-up call. It was clearly the mid-term election that has brought about the worst devastation to the democratic (small d) process.
I'm counting on all of you who are paying attention now, to not only get out and vote yourselves, but to pester your friends and relatives to do the same. We CAN do this. As Steve Jobs said in his 2006 address to Stanford graduates: "Stay hungry. Stay foolish." Find his address online; it's a good thing to read on a regular basis.
How is this even legal?
Not merely legal - it's constitutional. The states get to decide how they run their elections (with the exception of the conditions of the Federal Voting Rights Act).
The REAL question is - How is this moral or ethical?
Funny thing mentioning ethical in Michigan. We've had the chairperson of the Michigan Board of Ethics as the lead attorney supporting Emergency Manager Laws.
Then there's AG Schuette's opinion issued August 6, 2012 that Public Act 72 rises from the dead to become law again.
from article at Reuters
Schuette pointed out that Michigan has had procedures in place to assist governments in fiscal emergencies for more than 20 years.
"There is no policy reason to prevent the temporary revival of PA 72 while the referendum suspends PA 4, or a permanent revival should the voters approve the referendum and reject PA 4 at the polls," he said in the opinion.
-----------
Reading this through... POLICY REASON doesn't seem to hold up as law. According to his opinion MCL 8.4 (repealed laws can't be revived) doesn't apply because the will of the people's vote is less powerful than the vote of law makers. I believe that would be treason against the people, and a violation of his oath of office. But with the Board of Ethics in the bag these offenses aren't being heard.
It's too late, JL. Repub gerrymandering in Michigan after the 2010 census was so effective that even my relatively sane district is now represented in the House by a naked raindeer-herding conspiracy nut rather than a respected MD in the community. If a Dem couldn't win THAT race, a Dem will NEVER win in this district.
We all have to keep pushing for Redistricting Reform. District lines should be limited to four straight lines and four angles. Districts can be square, rectangular, parallelogram, trapezoid or whatever, but not a salamander or a dumbbell or an amoeba. This will put an end to Gerrymandering, which has become so much more efficient and effective since it is done by computer.
This is very scary to me that people who are very extreme and anti everyone except white Christian heterosexual males are making it so that they alone will be the leaders of our country. Can something be done on a federal level to prevent this? I thought Obama was talking about addressing the problems with elections?? What can be done?
One of the best things we can do is to keep talking about it, encouraging Rachel to keep reporting on it and letting the MSM know that we want more reporting on it.
THEN, we must act to make sure that they don't follow through. Snyder has already backed down on a couple of these sneaky ploys - he is sensitive to public opinion.
Stay active. Stay informed. Persuade others to do the same.
And be sure to VOTE in 2014.
Michigan is a Democratic state - the Republicans only win when we stay home.
Shelby Township is a somewhat affluent area north of Detroit. Out-state Michigan has long lamented the metro areas deciding elections, both national and statewide, and this is being floated as a way to fix that. Basically, "country mouse" has a sad because "city mouse"'s votes override theirs and that makes them a grumpy mouse. Even though Michigan always goes blue in the national, the rural areas are solid Republican and redneck as hell. Reagan's "welfare queen" boogeyman was almost tailor made for the rural vs. metro conflicts here.
Sad that this is what has become for the Republicans. They are out of touch with the people. They lose an election. They are trying too fix the next presidential election. They are a lost party - they are bullies - they are stupid. Instead of trying to fix the problems within their party they are choosing to rig an election. Their party is in such disarray - and they did it to themselves. And they are just playing with words - the states that do this had better be prepared for the Supreme court of their state - and probably also afraid of the people who elected them. Fraud is fraud.
The funny thing is that he is right: The electoral outcome
for the state under this scheme would most likely be “closer” to the will of
the people than the outcome in the winner take all scheme. After all, only slightly more than half of Michigan voters voted for Obama, and yet he received 100% of the electoral votes. In this new scheme, Obama would
still win the popular vote but would receive slightly less than half of the
electoral votes. This is obviously unfair, and might have a serious and
undesirable effect on the national picture, but it nonetheless more closely
approximates the will of the Michigan voters.
Your missing a few points: this would only be fair if the districts wern't gerymandered to favor republicians and it would only be fair if every state did it. Is the GOP going to have the same plan in Texas , no , just the states Obama won
I agree, and that is what I meant when I said it would have an undesirable effect on the national picture. Nonetheless, I maintain that Lund has a legitimate point that the scheme he suggests would, arguably, more fairly represent the voter distribution in Michigan. Keeping this as simple has possible: Lets assume O wins 52% of the popular vote, but the gerrymandered districts result in a 9 to 7 split in favor of M. This outcome is still arguably "closer" and more "fair" than the 16 to 0 split for O in the winner take all scenario. My point is that Mr. Benen, whom I respect, was overly hasty in his condemnation of republicans in this instance. The correct response, in my opinion, would have been to point out the legitimacy of Lund's position and its shortcomings in the national picture, thus illuminating the problems with the electoral college itself. Criticising conservatives at the expense of rationalism and genuinely progressive reform is not a good strategy. Peace!
If any of these States pass this it MUST be taken to the Supreme Court - how is this even Constitutional?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 - maybe Rachel needs to do a civics lesson on her show, since it's absurdly Constitutional for them to do.
Note to Rep. Lund: If getting “closer to the actual vote” is your objective, why not sponsor a bill to do away with the Electoral College altogether?
Let’s see how your party does “with the actual vote”.
Guess I should have read the thread before posting. Great minds...
Gerrymandering needs to be outlawed and the Electoral College needs to be abolished. Set up the districts in the states like commenter "mossle" suggests.
All elections are important. People slept on the 2010 elections. Did not tie in the census and redistricting. As a country we are fighting settled battles again. Folks bottom line get out and vote these folks out of office in 2014.
I'm from the 17th district in IL it's the textbook example of Gerrymandering. I'm all for popular vote at least you feel like your vote counts.
Funny how the Electoral College was just fine the way it was back in 2000 when it gave GW the presidency despite having lost the popular vote . . .