Getty Images
Mike Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee under George W. Bush, has heard about his party's election-rigging scheme, but he's unimpressed. "This is not a viable pathway for the party to win nationally," he said over the weekend.
The same day, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), his party's gubernatorial nominee this year, also balked at the Republican effort. "I don't like breaking up states," Cuccinelli told Dave Weigel. "I think winner-take-all is part of how a state matters as a sovereign entity.... It makes the state, as a state, matter more."
So, the entire scheme is falling apart? Alas, no.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) said on Saturday that his state may join an RNC-backed plan currently being contemplated in four other states that voted for President Obama in 2012 to rig blue state electoral votes in favor of future Republican presidential candidates.
"It's an interesting idea," Walker said at the National Review Summit in Washington. "I haven't committed one way or another."
The Republican governor added, "I think you have to be very careful with changes like that but I think it's worth looking at."
And in Michigan, where the Republican Party appears to have adopted a clear "Honey Badger Don't Care" attitude towards democracy, state House Speaker Jase Bolger (R) is increasingly supportive of the idea because, he sees it, Democratic areas sometimes "dominate" in major elections -- i.e. Democrats have a majority -- and so he's still open to rigging the system to create a tilted playing field.
There's been some commentary of late that the fear of this scheme is excessive -- Rick Hasen, I'm looking in your direction -- and that Republicans almost certainly won't follow through on this. We'll find out soon enough. But for those keeping an eye on the larger effort, note that for every state in which the efforts are stumbling, there's another in which the plan remains very much on the table.
Leave a Comment:
This won't happen in Wisconsin, Walker could not win reelection if he pushed this. The man is a true jerk, but he does value the Governorship...
Maybe Wisconsin should out him just for considering the idea. We really need to start holding our governors and state legislators accountable for their records. They support something harmful to the state they should be voted out, even if the measure fails.
A survey of Wisconsin voters showed 71% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.
NationalPopularVote
mvymvy: I won't read any pasted article on any blog. It's spamming to post that. All you do is diminish your position with free thinkers. I suggest you write in your own prose...
Dude...
Actually, mvymvy didn't cut and paste this... At least, this isn't the article he usually does... This actually indicates a considerable note of restraint on his part, keeping strictly to the topic at hand...
Thank you, mvy... You're learning...
Walker might push this IF he's re-elected. One more good reason for Dems to work hard to defeat him.
Walker will do what the Koch Bros. and his backers tell him to do.
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. Now may be the time to demand a Federal response to the question, "Why aren't we allowed to elect our president directly?" 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. Perhaps we can prevent politicians from attempting this sort of disenfranchisement now or at any time in the future. Thank You.
^^^ THIS. ^^^
thanks for the link; signed it and am now mailing to most of my address list!
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 would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), by state laws.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.
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
<sigh>
And here I was, hoping you had changed, mvy...
Andrew . . . You beat me to an important point. One of the first things that occurred to me was that newspapers, radio and TV stations, direct mail firms, and other media outlets in the swing states will take big revenue hits. They should be all over the fight against this silly idea.
Think of the money spent in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida alone this year. If electoral votes are going to be apportioned by Congressional District, there's relatively little reason for the presidential candidates and their parties to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on that race in those states.
If electoral votes are going to be apportioned by Congressional District, there's relatively little reason for the presidential candidates and their parties to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on that race in those states.
This is extremely short-sighted of the Republicans in those swing states. Campaigns bring in way too much money for them to even seriously consider this, yet they are. Obviously, they are not concerned about the economy in their states.
May become important again -- re Wisconsin bills: the Governor doesn't haven to sign them to become law. If legislature passes a bill, and the guv doesn't sign or veto it within 6? (or 10) days, it becomes law anyway. Walker did this in June.
If he's not against it, he's for it. His lack of a veto would speak loudly.
He won't be able to escape responsibility for this scheme going into effect.
As someone in Michigan who, over the last 3 years, has seen democracy spit on and run over using a compliant State Supreme Court, I assure you they are willing to follow through.
Not to mention the whole Roy Schmidt - Jase Bolger party switcheroo affair.
A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.
NationalPopularVote
When we talk about this issue, our myopia does not allow us to see what effect these laws would have around the world. If these laws pass and Republicans win elections even when they lose the popular vote, then other countries will feel free to follow our lead. It is extremely difficult for other countries leaders to take serious our rhetoric about democracy. How could Republicans conduct a foreign policy and talk about democratic ideals with a other countries? These laws would legitimize dictatorships like China, North Korea, Iran, etc.
Good point.
Easy: "We have a military that outguns the rest of the world combined, and if we were to close our market to you your entire economy would dry up and blow away in less than a year. Now what were we talking about again?"
Of course they'll do it...and blame mean old Obama (see your next post ;)
Create a cya talking point
It may well be that the only way to fix this is through suits over the districts across the country. It won't change the allocation, but it could change the outcome.
The fact is that Democratic candidates got way more votes for the House than did Republicans (1.3 million I believe).
Boehner is speaker only because of the highly skewed districts. With this proof in hand, it should make it much easier to challenge the validity of these districts. At the time they were drawn, the impact was only speculation. Now we have proof via the 2012 election results. It's time to take that proof to court everywhere.
What we really need it to not only stop this election rigging of the presidency, but to stop election rigging period. It's time for fair districts instead of ones that give people that live in cities 3/5ths of the votes of those who live in the rural areas.
All votes should be equal and it shouldn't matter if you live in the city or a rural area. It's time to stop the unfair districts. It's time for non-partisan districts that cheat no one and for everyone's vote to count equally.
Thanks Rachel for staying on this issue.
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 has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes, and 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
That's true for the presidency but fails to address the problem in the house. But I think it's a good idea.
The republican party is racist and controlled by the rich. Why do have the electoral vote, because it is a crime. We are controlled by the rich and they will not pay to defend ths country. We should have no electoral vote , it is crooked and deceitful.
We need no electoral vote only popular vote. The electoral vote is crooked.
One thing interesting to note...
Most wealthy people prefer to live in the suburbs of large cities... This is less boring than out in the sticks, and situates them closer to whatever headquarters they are associated with...
This means, the wealthy tend to live in districts that vote Democrat, not Republican...
You do not need to change the constitusion to eliminate the electorl vote.
Yeah, except that you do.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.
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.
The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes, and 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
The electoral vote is bad for a demoracy......
These discussions bring out the shills...
A lot of folks on the west coast have no clue what we're dealing with with today's Republicans. No clue whatsoever.
Hasen's argument was utterly ridiculous. If he thinks any of those considerations will make today's Republicans think twice, the dude is an isolated clown living under a rock in L.A. and never once met someone from the South or a Midwest Republican.
Why they will? Because they can, and it's who and what they are. If you don't know that, you do not know them, you do not interact with them, you do not know your country.
The west is the reason that the Democrats hold the Senate. In 2010 it was Nevada, Colorado, and California that pushed back against ridiculous Teapublicans. You are the one with no clue, because the road forward is not paved with strife, envy, or regionalism, it's paved with unity.
Disgusted, I've lived on the West Coast and in flyover country (where I'm from). Until you've lived in the environment in the middle of the country, it's hard to explain to others who live on the coasts.
I had a friend back in the GWB days who kept asking me "when will it be enough" (referring to the war and tax cut issues). I kept telling her, there is no "enough". They will keep pushing until we push back and stop them. It's up to Democrats to stop them. Otherwise, they will just keep pushing.
It's part of the problem in solving things because it's hard to believe until you see it for yourself.
Your cluelessness is incredible. You just start making irrelevant statements to what you're replying to from the get-go and then it only gets worse.
So you haven't met one have you? You don't interact with them, you don't understand them, you don't understand your country. About the best you do is come on a liberal blog and make limp noodle arguments that are the essence of the typical spineless cavalier insouciant Democratic dismissive response toward a ravenous, irrational, unquenchable group of people who will rip your dick off and feed it to the pigs for fun.
You don't know your country.
My last post was directed toward Lebowsky Dude.
@MHG-MEB: Exactly, MHG-MEB. I remember how clueless people in Seattle were as regards to Southern culture when I first moved there. You can't convince West coasters that people in the South actually believe the things they say, that they are as vicious underneath as it would appear with their stated policy initiatives. People think that is about being stupid. It is not. It is culture.
I think everybody should read this:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10126-how-a-brutal-strain-of-american-aristocrats-have-come-to-rule-america
This shhit is real, and if Democrats don't stand up to it, call it out for what it is, and STOP the goddamned lameass dismissals like the clueless Dude engages in, then we're headed for disaster.
The time is now. There are no tomorrows. It is here. KILL IT or it's going to kill you.
Disgruntled: You sure do toot your own horn alot, and at the same time dismiss the thoughts and concerns of others out of hand. Perhaps being a bloviating complainer who insults people is your way forward, but for alot of us it is not. It's truly weird how you feel you have cornered the market on understanding politics, because politics is subjective. Just that simple fact destroys your "arguments", because you serially suggest there is only one answer, yours...
And the Dude shows up again to prove there's no stopping his tirade of irrelevant point-making.
Dude = DUD = Dependable Useless Democrat.
DUD's are Democrats' gift to Republicans. Republicans love DUD's.
Disgruntled: Interesting take you have. It appears you are suggesting that people who respect the opinions of others are loved by the GOP. Perhaps this is true, but my observations point to the Republicans loving simpletons like you who tend to validate their stupid arguments by sinking to their exact level. Tell you what, try taking your pony show to a teatard website, then lets talk about "love". You would be commenter numero uno with your anti-Obama screeds that make little sense, kinfolk they would call you. Nothing excites teatards more than people like you, you speak the language...
Hahahahahaha..., you've yet to make a relevant point to the things you've been responding to. Instead of commenting on the difficulty people who haven't lived in the culture that is causing the country's problems have in believing how aggressively mean-spirited and focused these people are at achieving their political goals, YOU turned it into a pissing match like an aggrieved little girl. Maybe you have met a Tea Potty boy and he ripped your dick off and fed it to the pigs.
Don't forget to pat yourself on the back while accusing somebody else of tooting their own horn. What an limp-noodled asswhole you are, DUD.
Um actually I responded to your assertation about west coast people being clueless rather well. So well you threw a rod. Hope you are under warranty...
Um, no you didn't. You didn't even get close to addressing it. You apparently didn't even understand the point being made, and it still hasn't dawned on you. And apparently you're oblivious to the irony you create. This is not surprising.
Sorry your dick got fed to the pigs, DUD.
This is the process of serving the party - the pledge - the plan - instead of serving the people as in all WE THE PEOPLE, the oath of office, and the responsibility of representation. But this is seen from the local governing and schools into the states and right up into DC. The solution - no reelections, no money in elections or lobbying, no parties in governing, and much more people aware and involved and allowed to have their voice in the process. Too many elected think it's their job to LEAD instead of serve - HUGE difference.
This whole scheme is incredibly dangerous. The GOP knows that demographic changes have made it much more difficult for them to win the Presidency without stealing it. Thus, they will do everything that they can to subvert democracy, suppress the vote, and steal future elections. Do not underestimate them!
The Republicans have made it clear for a long time that Democracy doesn't interest them as long as it stands in the way of winning. They'll cheat, lie and steal to gain power. It's what they do.
I don't trust the Republicans. They are downplaying this thing. In Michigan we learned how quickly they do an about-face. Early on, Governor Snyder assured Michigan that RTW was not on his agenda. Now look where we're at.
I get disgusted with spineless and/or naive Democrats, but I sure hope we have enough street smarts to know that we had better tackle this whole thing early on.
The Republicans are like cornered animals right now. Don't forget that.
UPGremlin...
Whereabouts in the UP? I'm stuck in Kinchloe, just south of Sault Ste. Marie...
Retired, disabled and shut-in, and I'm surrounded by citizens who take everything FOX 'News' dishes out as Gospel... Tried to get involved in local Democrat politics, but when they heard my limitations, it was, "Just be sure to vote in November"... Be nice to know, someone else up here isn't 'reality-challenged'...
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000003629 StartFragment:0000002285 EndFragment:0000003593
The attempts by many right wing Republicans like Walker and Bolger to make it possible for them to win even with a minority of the votes is the kind of ploy James Madison warned about in Federalist 10. There he warned democracies failed because a powerful faction put its interests ahead of the country as a whole. The result was civil war, tyranny, and destruction.
Radical Republicans have pursued this path unerringly: refuse bipartisanship while claiming to be bipartisan, attempting to eliminate Democratic voters while claiming to fight voting fraud, and now attempting to empower a permanent minority over us all while claiming to strengthen the power of voters. Each and every time they lie, each and every time they move us closer to disaster.
They are traitors.
Sorry about the meaningless numbers. I type longer replies out and paste and did not notice them till too late.
Thank you for making the effort to apologize,,, A lot of folks wouldn't...
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained 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 powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
For all those posting about how a popular vote would be better : That is NOT the issue here. Please read the how the republican scheme would work . Also you can't have popular votes in some states and not others.
People here want to know what they can do to stop these partisan proposals enabling the candidate with less votes to win the presidency. They can support the National Popular Vote.
We certainly can have the National Popular Vote enacted by states with 270 electoral votes. They would guarantee the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
For the sake of discussion, I have lumped all Republicans into the same category since they do belong to that party. Republicans are pathological liars. Never in my lifetime has that fact been so evident than in the 2012 presidential campaign. I earnestly believe they would do whatever it took to give the Republicans the advantage in any election. Being an Independent voter I have tried to be nonpartisan in making my voting decisions. No more. It is not a matter of not wanting to believe the Republicans and their claims. It is impossible for me to believe anything that comes out of the Republican Party. If there is a way to get 'er done, they will chop up the states so no matter what, they win.
Didn't a majority try to recall Walker, that is until the Koch brothers bought the election?