WKAR-MSU/Flickr
Shortly after the 2012 elections, Republicans started kicking around a radical idea: identify battleground states where President Obama won, noting which ones were run by Republican policymakers, and changing the way they allocate electoral votes. Instead of a winner-take-all system used by nearly every state, these states would rig the election by awarding votes based on gerrymandered congressional district lines.
Six states were immediately part of the mix: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And slowly but surely, as revulsion to the scheme has grown, the number of states where the plan is viable has dwindled.
First, leading GOP lawmakers in Florida have already balked, and soon after, Republican unanimity in Virginia collapsed. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker (R) reconsidered his lukewarm encouragement, and in Ohio every state GOP leader decided they weren't interested. Even Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R), who put this idea on the table in the first place, said, "Nobody in Ohio is advocating this."
The state House may be considering a new and controversial plan on how Michigan's electoral college votes are distributed, but the state Senate isn't interested, said Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville.
"I don't know that the system now is broken. So I don't know that we need to fix it," he said.... Changing the system, "Is not on our agenda," he said.
To be sure, Michigan Republicans have demonstrated the capacity to quickly change their minds, and Mr. Richardville might be persuaded to put it on his agenda at some point in the future, but if the state Senate isn't interested, the scheme can't pass.
And that leaves Pennsylvania, where the plan remains on the table, but where there's been no action on the scheme.
If the plans fall apart completely, and no state follow through on the idea, it's fair to say the sunlight (i.e. public attention and media scrutiny) served as the ideal disinfectant.
Leave a Comment:
I'm still hoping for national popular vote, so more than just Ohio matters!
Of course, you're fine with a popular vote - we've got the demographics on our side. And anything that gives Democrats an advantage is, by definition, an unfair advantage. No, Republicans need every conceivable advantage to win so they can claim they did it all on their own. Like Lance Armstrong on steroids...ON STEROIDS.
That seems kind of silly. The artificial "balancing" of votes to benefit the less popular candidate is still silly to me. It's like holding a vote to decide if a teacher or a tiger should watch the kids during recess, except votes for the tiger are worth 5x as much to make sure the teacher doesn't have an "unfair advantage".
The possibility (and reality) that a presidential candidate can lose the popular vote, yet win the election, goes against the principle that everyone has equal vote.
Good luck with the 2/3 of the House and Senate plus 38 states ratifying the Constitution to get NPV.
Slappy Magoo
Would you care to tell me what you mean by your comment. I read it 3 times and I can't discern what you mean.
merr,
It's truth dripping with sarcasm.
Based on demographic trends, America is a center-left nation. Even the people who insist they're Republicans or right-leaning moderates, once you start asking them about their opinions about specific national goals or issues, they trend left, it's just that for much of the nation "Democrat" has a negative connotation, "liberal" or "progressive" even more so. They just remember Reagan liked Rambo and Rambo kicked ass, so ergo Republicans are more kick-ass or other such non-logic that makes it seem like Republicans are naturally "tougher." So they're "conservatives" even though they by and large are not conservative. They buy the rhetoric Republicans spew about being economically responsible, without realizing how irresponsible Republicans are economically.
Therefore, a popular vote would probably benefit Democrats. Certainly, if we had to elect a new President this year, a Democrat would be much more heavily favored. So Republicans are never gonna go for a National Vote. One of the reasons they like the allocating-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district scheme is because Dem districts are generally much more urban (read: densely populated) than Republican districts. It's why the GOP still controls the House, because there are fewer districts that lean left, they just have more people, but that doesn't translate into more Democratic Reps.
Now if you read my prior comment again, and add the appropriate amount of sarcasm, I suspect you'll get it.
Wow , you really have a handle on this , great post . I always think environmentalist are the true conservatives
hh3 -
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 amending the Constitution.
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
But this is the sort of scheme that can't happen until it does. The fact that so many GOP elders saw it as a good idea in the first place (before the backlash and uproar) leads me to believe they'll try to make it happen by hook or by crook, more than likely by crook. Much like the collective bargaining fiascoes in early 2011, this'll be the sort of thing they try to sneak in via amendment to state legislation, at which point it'll be up to the courts to hopefully put the kibosh on it, and being how right-leaning the courts have become since Dubya's days in the sun, that's not much better then 50-50.
Repub/teabaggers = Lyin', cheatin', stealin',greedy, manipulative, low-life P'sOS ! We can bet that they have alternate plans in the works --- Bet-Me ! And that's My best view of them ! They Want the Precious all for themselves !
Not to worry, they will think of something else over the next 4 years.
They can always retry rigging the voting machines.
I think this scheme existing in the minds of some GOP leaders at all is a sign that the democrats (and members of the GOP interested in preserving democracy) need to draft some federal voting legislation to ensure an even playing field across all states. Too many voting issues are plaguing us right now, and we need desperately need our leaders to address these attacks on democracy. And the thing is, there are GOP members who are against these cheap shots as well, but someone needs to come forward with a moderate, reasonable legislative proposal to ensure fair elections in every state for every voter.
Very true but, I doubt this - like anything getting done in Congress - will ever see the light of day. The tour of bipartisanship has left the station.
Both California and Arizona (not totally opposite ends of the spectrum, but close) have passed citizen initiatives requiring nonpartisan redistricting commissions. Despite Jan Brewer's best efforts [1] Arizona's has worked pretty well this time around.
If the alternative is the threat of Federal uniform standards for Congressional elections (where the Feds have direct Constitutional authority) the States might go along while they still have a choice.
Besides that, citizens of States where voters have the power to propose direct initiatives might want to look into starting the process and basing it on one of the existing examples. Regardless of what the party mechanics think or say, all of the polling I've seen suggests that actual voters are inclined to favor honest elections and independent commissions doing the detail work.
[1] Don't laugh.
The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways.
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 preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
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.
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
Out of curiosity, what do the numbers look like if Democrats tried the same trick in response? How does the electoral college look under a Bluemap scenario?
Since there aren't any "all Blue" states, it wouldn't help if Democrats did the same thing the Republicans have been considering and could actually backfire. For example, under the winner-take-all system, Obama got all the West Coast Electoral votes (CA, OR and WA) but if it went by Congressional district, he wouldn't have. And in states with large rural areas, I don't see any way you could gerrymander the districts to gain complete Democratic control.
There aren't any Democratic-controlled legislatures in red-voting states.
yes there are kentucky, and west virginia,
Nah... politicians won't fall on their swords for anyone but themselves. Any state that tries this gets news trucks and kleig lights. Anyone who pushes this gets tarred. Reince Preschool is on board because he looks at things short term as the RNC honcho, an unelected office.
I'm so tired of this stuff being done by the republicans. I live in an area that was gerrymandered and ended up with Mr Cantor as my representative. We had no say so in this being done to us. I feel like I have been disenfranchised.
As someone who found himself in Ron Paul's district after Texas redistricted in 2003, I know exactly how you feel.
Of course, Paul was very good at bringing earmarks to the 14th Texas -- nearly $400M in FY 2010. So there were some advantages to Tom Delay's gerrymandering shennanigans; no self-respecting Blue Dog Dem, like we'd had before, would've been shameless enough to pull that kind of stunt.
Then again ....once and a while a positive . Redistricting divorced me from Dan Webster (R)(Teabag) and gave me Allan Grayson :-)
You got lucky there. I got rid of Darrell Issa. We got Scott Peters, a (D).
I wish to God we could give Buck McKeon the boot.
You can vote for someone other than Eric Cantor the next time he's up for re election.
Re Cantor -- Connect with your local Democratic committee. Help make sure that someone Dem (and a solid candidate) runs against Cantor next election -- and get out the vote bigtime to vote for that person. It's do-able. Hard, but not impossible. Note that turnout is typically lower in non-Presidential election years -- his opponent in 2012 got more votes than he did in 2010. You see? Also, if someone primaries Cantor, you might want to help that guy out on the side. Yes, even if you manage it, it will be tough to hold on to the seat, but getting Cantor out for 2 years would be a start.
So, there is honor among thieves after all.
We had best Not hold our breath , these goons cannot be trusted no-matter what they say ! They are in campaign mode and will attempt anything to gain the trust of the American people at this point and forward !
What's dangerous is the possibility that the various Republican legislatures have already been damaged just by considering this proposal. If they feel they have nothing further to lose, they'll go ahead and implement their plans. Best thing we can be doing now is to praise the leadership and statesmanship of the Republicans in FL, VA, WI, MI, OH and PA.
"Oh, hail to thee, wise Republicans. If only I lived in your state, I'd vote for you because of your courageous decision to leave the electoral college alone."
I'm not certain that I would trust them that far. Besides, nausea would set in before I got past "wise Republicans".
Good News, but cautious optimism here, Snyder also said RTW "was not on the agenda" so careful here, this scam may be rammed through the way so many other damaging special/ self interest bills and laws have been in the last disastrous past 3 months. Eyes wide open !!
He's just waiting for the next lame-duck session, so they can pass it without discussion, and of course with appropriations to make it referendum-proof.
Exactly like Michigan did with their Emergency Manager Law. The commotion will die down eventually, and they will probably try again
PA will wait until the media takes it's eye off the ball.
Then they will quietly push it through.
I'm hoping the Sandusky thing will finally come back to bite Gov. Corbett in the ass and maybe we can get him thrown out of office next year. Fingers crossed...
Legalese: One cannot allocate electoral votes to allow one party to win in any election.
Why, you ask?
Answer: It is not because of the Constitution. Gerrymandering and jury-rigging vote creates Jim Crow which in turn make for a segregation of votes in our districts which in turn lets for many voter to become inferior to the other voters and by votes made by an all white allocation of those votes by state. If only the white populated districts win in elections what does that tell you?
In short: Gerrymandering and jury-rigging places a fog of prejudice into our voting and creates cheating behind the curtians of our voting booths.
Now we have to do something about Citizen's United. That also helps "certain" candidates win in places they wouldn't have without the piles of money and ads to sway them.
and to ban public sector unions from being THE top five contributors to bribe our corrupt politicians...I agree...we need to level the "playing" field! ASAP!!
No lobbyist for anyone of either party! Ever.
@yakman'
OK, fine with me if--
no company that gets gov. money, tax cuts, or contracts can make campaign contributions, either.
If that is not OK with you, you are a hypocrite.
we both know that isn't going to happen anytime soon...but it does sound nice. it's fun to watch the dialogue from both sides and hope everyone notices it's all about themselves too:) Your response is quite appropriate!
I have a really hard time believing Republicans just backed off of this plan. It is more likely that their plan went public and caused outrage, so they are now planning to try and sneak it in behind closed doors. We have not heard the last of this.
The local Democratic committee here in PA where I live has been pushing back pretty hard on this idea. Lots of angry emails and calls, if the feedback we've been getting is to be believed. I'm hoping our legislature is listening, but I have no idea one way or the other.
I have a hard time believing that the Republicans at the state level are concerned about their image, so I doubt the media or public pressure caused them to back down. It's either that they have enough members in their legislatures that are against it or they don't want to push their luck on the legality of the Gerrymandering and election fixing they've gotten away with so far. Remember, there are some smart people buried under that pile of BS in Washington DC who advise - sometimes.
Methinks that backing off on this scheme is just a cover for a new, more diabolical scheme to steal the next election they can't win honestly.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
So, let's not just write each other on blogs - contact your "representatives" (even if they are not really representing you) and let them know how you feel about their slimy tactics! I'm in a really red county here in MI so threatening not to vote for them in 2014 won't make a difference to them if it's just me, but if I can make this issue known to a lot more people, it just might! I'm also going to re-post articles about this on my Facebook page and keep doing it until my friends de-friend me!!
so move to a large population center or blue state to be with likeminded people and live in peaceful bliss? Wouldn't you be happier since right now...it's just you?
Really yakman48
Lauri should move away because her representative is a shyster. You offering to pay the cost?
They ALL still need to be watched. They might try again when they think no one is watching.
Exactly right. They sure trying to go down to the bell with the voter suppression that cut early voting. Husted in Ohio must be so proud. At least Mittens didn't win there and the teapublicants were just shocked.
Perhaps these GOPers realized what they were planning to do is un-Constitutional!
Nah. If they can get away with it, they don't really care. Their electorate is so dumbed down and only watch Faux and Rush for their information.
states can do almost anything they want...it's a local thing. The Constitution isn't in play concerning this.
The
cities don't represent the country and tyranny of the majority by popular vote
in those locations is a real and present danger...so any NATIONAL
drive/policy/fiat originating from these densely populated areas should be
repressed on the national stage. They are known havens of the dregs of society
and thus are in more need of "force" to regulate and insure safety.
By their very nature they are not/cannot be afforded the freedoms and
independence that that is equal to those who chose to live elsewhere. You can
vote with your feet and move. Our republic was designed to not have a "majority" to tyrannize the minority...it's called freedom. Why do Dems insist on foisting their lifestyles and ideologies on everyone? Mature, educated people accept our diversity. It's why we weren't a National government that the liberals want...but a Federal Government that allows choice...
"to
subject the provinces to the metropolis is therefore to place the destiny of
the empire not only in the hands of a portion of the community, which is unjust
but in the hands of a populace carrying out its own impulses which is very
dangerous. The preponderance of "capital cities" is therefore a
serious injury to the representative system and it exposes modern republics to
the same defect as the republics of antiquity, which all perished from not
having known this" ~Alexis de Tocqueville~ 1835
yakman48
Let me see if I have this right.
An American citizen living in a large over populated crime ridden cesspool of a city should not have the right to vote, or their vote ignored, but an American citizen living out on the wide open of say Texas should have the rite to vote? So would this lead to the only people who could then vote would have to own really large acres of land?
Yes “Mature, educated people accept our diversity.” Republicans are the political group that does not accept our diversity - the Same sex marriage issue, a woman’s right to chose, voter id issue*, and replacing polices that the people of the state voted out back in.
*the only fraud found was by the Republicans.
This is mostly a
"Big City" populist issue. let the over populated crime ridden
cesspools that many of our large cities have become and the power mongering
that they influence upon the rest of their prospective states residents...just
make the declarations that they no longer enforce or protect the inherent
rights of free citizens so we can all avoid doing business or vacationing in
them. If you look at the red/blue voting result maps you’ll notice that it's
the cesspool cities overriding the votes of the whole state and it carries on
throughout the country...this is a major flaw in our democracy/republic that
was pointed out long ago...even by visiting foreigners. Most of us don't live
like these big city folks nor ever want to...
If our cities are so horrible then why do so many flock to live in them? I love my big city, flaws and all. No place else can I find the world in a ten block square radius. different foods, languages, colors, beliefs, rituals. Those like yourself who fear diversity with your A.brotherhood Clover (which makes those of us who bear the proud Irish name Clover ashamed of you for turning our symbol of luck and peace into something small and hateful) should stay far away from cities not because of our beautiful diversity but because we don't want your hard hearts and small minds poisoning the well.
It's YOU who have a problem with diversity...leave others to live as they chose. Liberals lack the maturation to accept true diversity...intolerant much? And now you claim to speak for the Irish? You're insane! The Irish know first hand what revolution against tyranny is all about...it's why everyone needs guns...to use force against force.
Let's not forget that Republicans have a history of passing legislation at the last minute to change election laws in ways that rig election outcome. If you think you've heard the last of this one, just wait until 2016 when Hillary announces she's running. This election rigging scheme will be resurrected, leaving complacent Democrats wringing their hands.
First, you don't need a Constitutional Amendment to switch to the national popular vote. State legislators can change their allocation of electors to match the NPV winner. It's the same mechanism that the GOP was trying to use to get all those states to switch to proportional voting. Except in this case, there would actually be popular support.
Second, after Sandy, maybe we should rethink the NPV. Imagine if Sandy reduced the turnout in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut by 10 million. Assume that 7 million were Obama supporters. Now imagine that Obama loses the popular vote by 2 million (instead of winning it my 2 million).
Or, imagine that the Republicans lose a popular vote election in 2016 because global warming causes the biggest storm since Noah to knock out Texas for a month. It would be fitting, but it would also lead to even more crazies denying the legitimacy of the President.
The potential effects of bad weather on elections are decreasing from year to year because of the increasing use of mail-in voting, absentee voting, and early voting. In 2012, 100% of the voting was done by mail in Washington state and Oregon. In numerous states, a substantial fraction of a state’s vote now comes from absentee voting and early voting. In California, for example, 51% of the vote in the November 2012 presidential election was cast by mail.
Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all rule, a small difference in turnout (caused by bad weather or any other factor) in one part of a closely divided battleground state can potentially switch the electoral-vote outcome in that state (and hence the national outcome of the presidential election). In contrast, a localized reduction in turnout is unlikely to materially affect the outcome of a nationwide vote for President.
● Bad weather regularly affects the outcome of elections—both state and federal. A study of past weather conditions indicates that bad weather reversed the statewide outcome for President in Florida in 2000 (and hence the national outcome).
● Neither the National Popular Vote compact nor the state-by-state winner-take-all rule can do anything about the weather; however, a national popular vote for President would reduce the likelihood that bad weather could reverse the outcome of a presidential election.
The state-by-state winner-take-all rule ensures that a state affected by turnout-depressing weather (such as a hurricane) will nonetheless cast its full number of electoral votes in the Electoral College. However, the winner-take-all rule can result in those electoral votes being cast in a way that is unrepresentative of normal voter sentiment in the state.
Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all rule, a small difference in turnout (caused by bad weather or any other factor) in one part of a closely divided battleground state can potentially reverse the electoral-vote outcome in that state (and hence the national outcome of the presidential election). In contrast, a localized reduction in turnout is unlikely to materially affect the outcome of a nationwide vote for President.
Bad weather in upstate New York, downstate Illinois, western Michigan, and southern Ohio frequently affects which candidate carries the state in a federal or state election.
Nonetheless, the fact that a hurricane (such as Sandy) could hit shortly before or on Election Day is a reminder that weather can, and does, affect the outcome of elections.
Great job, Rachel. You were the first to shine a light on these cockroaches and they all scurried.