Getty Images
Over the weekend, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) offered cautious encouragement to Republicans hoping to rig the 2016 presidential election by changing how his state allocates electoral votes. The conservative governor didn't explicitly endorse the idea, but Walker called it "interesting" and "worth looking at."
Yesterday, the Wisconsin Republican was far more circumspect.
Gov. Scott Walker says he has a "real concern" about a Republican idea to change the way the state awards its electoral votes, conceding the move could make Wisconsin irrelevant in presidential campaigns. [...]
"One of our advantages is, as a swing state, candidates come here. We get to hear from the candidates," said Walker in an interview Saturday at a conservative conference in Washington, D.C. "That's good for voters. If we change that, that would take that away, it would largely make us irrelevant."
That's a far cry from what Walker was saying over the weekend, and it's a welcome change. What's more, it's worth noting that the governor happens to be correct -- if Wisconsin changed to a system in which electoral votes are dictated by gerrymandered district lines, the state would immediately go from key, contested battleground to campaign afterthought.
Indeed, that applies to any of the other states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida) where the election-rigging scheme has been discussed -- candidates and their campaign teams wouldn't have any incentive to invest time and energy in states where the outcome is predetermined.
So, does this mean Walker is against the idea?
It remains unclear -- he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he's "qualified" his comments from the weekend, and he's "not embracing" the scheme, at least not yet.
Walker added, "The most important thing to me long-term as governor on that is what makes your voters be in play." And if that's true, this plan is a non-starter, since it would do the exact opposite.
This would, incidentally, put Walker at odds with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, a long-time ally of the governor who's also from Wisconsin and who's endorsed the scheme.
Leave a Comment:
Are these Republican governors and state legislators in a competition to see who can be more of an elected menace to a democratic society? Or, are they simply cruel power-mongers?
Back to you Scott Walker! -Kevo
Either that or Governor Walker simply hasn't received his orders yet from his Fearless Leaders - the Brothers Koch - so he's hedging.
Hidden influences are present, but I think these sorts of interpretations are barking up the wrong tree.
Any kind of reform of the Electoral College system will make swing states a thing of the past, so it is good for the business of state politicos both right and left to oppose electoral reform. In 2012, it became a $6 billion dollar business, and this is just the beginning. So it should come as no shock that what is good for business for the political advisers strangely has a way of translating into what politicians say is good for their state.
The corrupting influence is the campaign industry itself that profits handsomely due to the gush of funds injected into campaigns after citizen's united. Now, the $6 billion spent in 2012 may be small potatoes compared to the profits of Defense, Agribusiness, Big Oil, or Wall Street, but those benefiting from this industry happen to be closest to the reins of power.
-----
PS. I support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which eliminates the electoral college without the need of a constitutional amendment. It is a state law that comes into affect if the electoral votes of member states add up to a majority of electoral votes. Then, if the national popular vote goes for a particular candidate, the member states pledge their votes to that winner. In some years it will benefit Dems, in others it will benefit the GOP. What matters is that it is fair.
Like they say on tv detective shows: follow the money!
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 National Popular Vote 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
What about apportioning electoral votes according to percentages within a state (NOT Congressional districts, but statewide)? No winner-take-all (except in the case of a landslide), and thus more fairly representing the "will" of the electorate.
Actually, the constitution does not require or even mention congressional districts. They are an invention of the states, and Congress has full power to eliminate them via a simple law- this is permitted under article one section 4 of the constitution- the same mechanism that congress can and should use to institute national regulation and standardization of voting for representatives.
What the conservatives on the Supreme Court have argued and were narrowly prevented from ruling in Vieth v. Jubelirer (Cornell law article) is that claims of political gerrymandering are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist.
Congress can and should sweep districts- and thereby all gerrymandered districts into the dustbin and replace them with the general Ticket- the scheme of voting which has existed from the founding up until 1971. Democrats would need to control both houses of congress, but could do this with a simple majority. My presumption is that they would institute some sort of ranked choice scheme of voting like the one used by Australia and has been used in various forms since the 19th century. There are many such schemes, and as far as I'm concerned, any ranked scheme is preferable to a system vulnerable to gerrymandering.
Hopefully RM or Hayes can have Akhil Reed Amar on soon and explain what Congress's and the courts' options are for eliminating this gerrymandering obscenity from our democracy.
---------Postcript----------
To get into the legal weeds, SCOTUS has consistently ruled that such infringements of the principle of one person one vote are unconstitutional- but what has been going on for the last 20 years is that the Courts have not found any practical way of deciding whether particular are or are not constitutional. The logical implication from rulings that state SCOTUS has a responsibility to insure constitutional protection of voting rights, is that any scheme which is nonjusticiable is therefore a means of bypassing constitutional protections regardless of intent.
Why isn't anyone pushing for national popular vote, so everyone's vote counts, not just people in Ohio?
they thought they could do this scheme in the dead of night, with no one watching.
God Bless the Fourth Estate
I'm worried that his 'cold feet' will suddenly warm up in the dead of some night when he's gotten the GOP legislature to pass it ...
They need to know we are watching and they will not be able to do it secretly. They know it smacks of subversion of democracy so keep the light on all of them.
They believe their stereotypes of non teahadists being ignorant, low information voters who are easily distracted and who don't pay attention or just won't understand what is being done to disenfranchise them.
You'd think November would have disabused them of this comfortable fairy tale. Apparently not.
Please proceed, Republicans.
The clowning on the right is either
"Are these Republican governors and state legislators in a competition to see who can be more of an elected menace to a democratic society? Or, are they simply cruel power-mongers?
Back to you Scott Walker! -Kevo"
Or -
...non teahadists being ignorant, low information voters who are easily distracted and who don't pay attention or just won't understand what is being done to disenfranchise them ...
The sneering , condescending prattle of the innumerable voices of Koch brother family funded "conservative" media is both , menacing power mongers , with a cruel irony about their opinion of the lesser of two evils . Never ones to half arse , they are committed the whole arsing of America .
They are all about the biggest evil possible , with just the right amount of cruelty , all of it .
The shame of it is that if they had ever had to work for a living , they may have made revolutionary contributions scavenger cuisine .
We will never know ...
Question? Assuming these states maintain or enhance their republican majorities, what's to stop them from changing the system back to winner-take-all if the climate looks more favorable to them???
Like I said yesterday, Walker wants to win reelection. This would blow up the politics, guarantee a giant turnout to topple Walker.
Quite remarkable that Walker says: "The most important thing to me long-term as governor on that is what makes your voters be in play," but does not say: "What is most important to me is the fundamental norm of equality in a representative democracy: one person one vote." I guess that makes him a mainstream Republican in today's America.
I've no idea where you get the idea that PA was a flexible state. The President's electoral team ID PA as a safe state and the candidate spent no time here to speak of. Money did not pour in until the end. Rmoney didn't appear but twice in the Philly area and both times primarily for fund raisers. it is why this discussion is till thick and heated here.
The local Wisconsin television stations need the ad revenue generated by competing campaigns. I can see why some of the current local entertainment industry players would be lukewarm to this proposal.
Republican governors are backing off the gerrymander/apportion delegates per congressional district plan because suddenly there are no more "safe" districts. National money will get funneled into down-ticket races. We saw this with Republican PAC money funneled to the local level already. If the Presidential election comes down to individual congressinal races, national money from both parties will concentrate on "winnable" districts (are you listening Michele Bachman or Paul Ryan?). No matter how you gerrymander for statewide districts, a presidential election changes the equation.
At odds with Reince Priebus is the right place to be. As for whether Walker is ready to oppose this latest slimy scheme, I don't believe anything that comes out of Scooter's mouth!
he just doesn't want other states to hog all of that sweet presidential action!
maybe he wants to unionize the poll watchers
http://walworthcountytoday.com/news/2013/jan/29/vos-subpoenaed-redistricting-case/
Recent surveys show 9 out 10 GOPtp members prefer the softness and absorbency of Constitutional facial tissue.
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. Thank You.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.
It 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
So in order to win any political race, the Republications have to 'fix' districts - they cannot win on their own merits? I say DELETE the Republican party altogether if they are that useless!
That is not a novel or novelist idea , more of a short story .
Washington state Republicans have introduced a bill to apportion electoral votes by Congressional district.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/01/29/gop-lawmakers-propose-new-rules-to-allocate-electoral-college-votes/
Washington's House and Governor are Democrats, so this bill is unlikely to get any traction. And Washington has an independent commission in charge of redistricting, so gerrymandering is less of an issue than in some other states.
I am waiting to see a similar bill introduced in Texas by the Republicans there.
Support for a national popular vote remained steady, at 77% overall, after the National Popular Vote Bill was signed by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire.
A survey of Washington state voters conducted on May 5–6, 2009 showed 77% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. This 77% support level is the same overall percentage registered on the identical question in a December 2–3, 2008 poll in Washington. Percentages by subgroups were similar in both polls.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in the May 2009 poll was 88% among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 73% among others.
By gender, support in the May 2009 poll was 85% among women and 67% among men.
By age, support in the May 2009 poll was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
An additional question was asked in the May 2009 poll in which respondents were asked to make a three-way choice among three alternative methods for awarding the state’s electoral votes, with the following results:
NationalPopularVote
Any T-Pub in office needs to reassess this obvious power grabbing legislation. They have accused others of this, what else is new? It's what they do. Any T-Pub voter needs to ask themselves "is this what the framers had in mind?". To change elections to the corporate sponsors… that is the foundation of the T.P. corporate sponsors, ALEC… all the elements of taking power from the people and giving it to corps conspiring with Congress.
Yes, it is time to act through each state to stop electoral college schemes and redistricting schemes.
Get these redistricting ordinances into non partisan hands of the people of each district and have it on the books in time for 2020 census.
Whatever can be done fairly to reverse any unfair "rammed through" legislation should be done right away.
We have been on shaky ground ever since the 2000 debacle when SCOTUS decided the outcome of a STATE election for us. UG-LY! Not what the framers wanted, either.
It's not voter fraud, it's corps taking voting power from the people. Voting has been expanded and that is NOT a bad thing for democracy. We do need to pay attention to events and have the media be LESS corporate, not MORE.
I was under the impression that the WI Senate was in Democratic hands. Is this not true?
Apparently not, but that can be changed.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/Pages/senhome.aspx