Millhiser writes: "So there is always a danger that Republicans could rapidly flip-flop on election-rigging if it looks likely a Democrat will win the White House again in 2016."
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R), one of the architects of the Republican election-rigging plan. (photo: AP)
3 Reasons the Election Rigging Scandal Is Not Dead
31 January 13
wo weeks ago, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus called upon "states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red" to consider a Republican plan to rig future presidential races. Under the GOP plan, these blue states would stop awarding electoral votes to the winner of the state as a whole, and instead would award them one-by-one to the winner of each congressional district. Because these districts are highly gerrymandered to favor Republicans, the election-rigging plan ensures that Republicans will win the overwhelming majority of the electoral votes in these blue states regardless of how the people of those states cast their votes.
Six states potentially fit Priebus' description of a blue state that is currently controlled by Republicans - Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. To date, senior Republicans in four of these states have either voted down the plan or indicated that it will not be taken up in the first place, and the governor of a fifth state has expressed concerns about the plan:
- Florida: Florida is the least blue of the six states where the GOP plan could be enacted, so it is unsurprising that top Florida Republicans appear cold to the plan. Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R) compared the plan to rigging a football game, and state Senate President Don Gaetz (R) supports abolishing the Electoral College altogether.
- Virginia: Yesterday, a Virginia state senate committee voted to kill the election-rigging plan by an overwhelming 11-4 vote. Four Republicans opposed rigging the Electoral College.
- Ohio: Many of the most senior Republicans in Ohio, including Gov. John Kasich, state Senate President Keith Faber and House Speaker William G. Batchelder all said this week that they will not pursue the election-rigging plan, and Batchelder added that he "is not supportive of such a move."
- Michigan: In an interview with Bloomberg yesterday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) said that he is "very skeptical" of the election-rigging plan and would oppose taking it up at least until right before the next redistricting.
- Wisconsin: The election-rigging plan is decidedly not dead in Wisconsin, but Gov. Scott Walker (R) said earlier this week that he has "real concern" that it could diminish the relevance of Wisconsin in presidential races.
So the Republican Plan is officially dead in one state and lacks the support of essential lawmakers in three states. Of the two states where it is decidedly still alive - Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the top Republican in one of those states says he has concerns about the plan. Nevertheless, supporters of democracy should not break out the champagne yet because there are three reasons to be frightened that the plan could reemerge.
The first is that the plan is still alive and well in Pennsylvania, which has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every single election for more than two decades. Both Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) support rigging the Electoral College.
The second is that a slightly modified verson of the plan could still reemerge in the states where it appears dead. Indeed, Pileggi already proposed modifying the plan in Pennsylvania to allocate electoral votes proportionally according to the total popular vote in the state, rather than by congressional district. This version of the election-rigging plan would award less electoral votes to Republicans, because it does not take advantage of gerrymandering, but it would still put a rule in place only in blue states, while leaving red states like Texas free to give all their electoral votes to the Republican candidate.
The third reason to be concerned is that the mere fact that a Republican elected official says they are not interested in pursuing a partisan power grab today does not mean that they will not back it tomorrow. Gov. Snyder swore up and down that he was not interested in pursuing a so-called "right to work" law in Michigan, only to sign this anti-labor law into effect late last year. So there is always a danger that Republicans could rapidly flip-flop on election-rigging if it looks likely a Democrat will win the White House again in 2016.
So the GOP election-rigging plan could, to borrow from Justice Scalia, still emerge "like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried." For the moment, however, this ghoul appears far less likely to devour American democracy than it did two weeks ago.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Is putting strongly into place 'All entitled must be able to easily cast their vote, and EACH & EVERY VOTE MUST BE HONESTLY COUNTED, then strongly enforcing same, the #1, most important step we the sheeple need to take, in order to begin to bring about sooooooo needed change? Yes. Makes sense, does it not?
You make total sense and it appears the Republicans have decided that pushing an agenda of blocking voters from voting or manipulating the counts around the edges is not enough for them. After all it didn't get them the Senate or the Presidency. What did work, was violating the premise of 1 person 1 vote. This, via gerrymandering is what saved their House majority. It is also the premise they violate by altering the Electoral votes to reflect gerrymandered districts.
Gerry-mander
Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Repu blican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXBA59pTBh8&list=UU2vH_tmrqUEYoICOA_AX1xQ
Two States vote this way already.
It also is much closer to the Polular vote than the current system is.
OH, it is NOT a decision that Congress can make anyway, it is a State issue.
Any or Every State makes this decision and they can do it if they see fit...like Maine and Nebraska.
We do NOT use the popular vote so GROW UP!
Voting by Congressional district would be MUCH closer to the popular vote than we have now...
SO WHAT'S YOU PROBLEM!!
As it might well have done in this last election. It is a blatant, partisan, and transparently unethical attempt to make sure that a Democrat cannot obtain the White House, even if he wins the popular vote convincingly. It is vote rigging, pure and simple.
I hope that you know that Obama won almost 62% of the electoral vote but only 51% of the popular vote!
This anti popular vote is what you want to continue!
YOU are exposed!!!
So, it is YOU who are exposed.
The problem is that Republicans want to do it selectively--th at is, ONLY where it would work in their favor. Voting by district for president would only be fair if it were done in all 50 states, red and blue alike.
Gerrymandering has produced a situation in which Republicans are represented in Congress wildly disproportionat ely to their total votes. In other words, in several key states, Republicans hold a much greater percentage of house seats than they should based on party affiliation.
Democrats got more votes for the House in the last election and could not win control. One study shows they'd have to get 7 percent more votes than Republicans to overcome the effects of gerrymandering.
What many Republicans do not realize is that it's mostly made up of old people a large majority of them white. Most young people, Hispanics and blacks do not vote for a Republican.
Read my note above. I agree that it is totally legal, and a state issue. But, due to gerrymandering, the plan distorts the popular vote. And that is exactly why the Republicans are in favor of this plan. It violates the principal one one person, one vote.
I used to have a bumper sticker post-Dimwits "Selection" that read "One person, one vote. -Not applicable in certain states". Pretty close to the bone there, what?!
Now, with Citizen's United, people sell their votes and only get the following:
"...hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
...
... had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians"
Prophetically or timelessly written by John Lennon, Just gimme some truth
You clearly do not understand our electoral system!
People are free to vote or free not to vote.
Take California, 55 electoral vote but heavily Democratic...th e BIGGEST prize yet no Republican or Democrat even campaigns there! Sure Dems go to collect cash to spend in other States but not in CA.
The same in New York and New Jersey.
The opposite in Texas and much of the center of the country.
To vote by Congressional district, something up to each individual STATE and not Congress, would clearly be a better system that we have now...but you cry that more fair won't help YOUR party so you cry foul!!
Shame one you, you must want just appoint someone and get rid of voting altogether!!
All of what you say about allocating electoral votes based on Congressional districtshaving the potential of exapnding the election landscape would make for great discussion. It is not a plan I would support until after we deal with allocating the districts along common interests in equivalent numbers. Right now, the district allocations are based on which party happens to have won the election every 10 years.
The reason we cry foul is NOT because it is illegal, because it is not. It is however, not a step forward. Nobody here has advocated appointing anyone to anything, and I believe that should the discussion turn to the Electoral College, I would be getting as many red thumbs as you. But please, just acknowledge that making this type of change before it could have been considered as a factor in allocating districts, is cheating. Legal, but not acting honorably or respecting the will of the people. Which, by the way, even Ronald Reagan considered to a sacred duty.
This is up to the individual STATES, and just as many Democrat States are gerrymandered to the Dems favor!
Congressional districts are basically the same size by population, and pretty evenly split between Dems and the GOP!
If that were not the case then Pelosi would not have been speaker if as you say it would favor the GOP.
That it is possible does not mean it is not rigging.
That it might be legal does not mean it is not rigging. Although an honest court could hold that these plans violate both the fifth clause of the 1965 voting rights act and the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.
And the argument that it would be "closer" to the popular vote is a deliberate distortion. Had this plan been in place it is possible the election would have been awarded to Romney. In other words, the plan would have served to thwart the will of the people and nullify the popular vote.
And, oh yeah, I'm a grown up...so your admonishment to "grow up" falls on deaf (and old) ears.
The Constitution says a state shall have electoral votes to match the representations it has in Congress.
That means all electoral voters represent the state, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says each electoral voter represents a congressional district.
Closing voter precinct places in high density population areas forcing inner city citizens to wait seven hours or more to cast their ballot.
Voter intimidation with partisans standing just outside the limit allowed by law.
Voting list purges that massively target Democratic leaning districts.
And, in my own state, a GOP woman who was caught red handed, and arrested, for shredding Demo ballots.
There is your fraud. Not the deliberate fabrications of the GOP echo chamber sound machine. But real live verifiable events.
Republicans will do anything to win. Well, anything except win the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/nov/19/online-petition/online-petition-claims-obama-got-more-votes-one-co/
Face it, there was no voter fraud. Obama won fair and square. And now the cheaters on your side want to figure out a way to steal the future.
You are right that the federal government exercises too much power.
Such as the GOP in Congress getting the feds involved in family planning. Or Republicans getting the government involved in a woman's pregnancy or regulating the speech of the knocked-up doll, her advisors and health-care providers.
Then we have Republicans having government deciding who we can take as lovers or as spouses. We have Republicans telling us the proper amount of patriotism to show or have government punish us if we show the wrong type of patriotism or lack of patriotism. This is real "too much power" because none of those actions are authorized by the Constitution.
Let's hope those 10% across-the-boar d cuts don't happen because that is a sure and proven path to economic disaster. Always has been, always will be.
About 94 percent of the 633 people who live in that division are black. Seven white residents were counted in the 2010 census.
In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920.
Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's 3rd division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes. In fact, Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him.
The ward's 15th division, which also cast no votes for Romney, also cast no votes for McCain in 2008. Thirteen other Philadelphia precincts also cast no votes for the Republican in both 2008 and 2012.
Finally, the article commented that "in 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions." Thus, it is not surprising that Romney saw a similar result. NO FRAUD, just African Americans who understand that Republicans despise their race, with the exception of a few 'house Republicans'
I guess that it all goes back to that dusty, gnarled, outdated, anti-democratic electoral college system which is the spawn of the elite land and slave owners when only THEY could vote but still plays into the hands of the wealthy and corrupt, allied with citizens united and the relentless gerrymandering of the reprobate party in redistricting. That's a pretty toxic but powerful mix for the unscrupulous.
BUT, ah but! -Who exactly does the Grotty Old Party have in mind for 2016? The 2012 batch were a pretty pathetic quantity and the "selected" candidate was resoundingly told to piss off and disappear by almost all but the white male demographic which, as recent RSN and other alternative media articles have pointed out, is shrinking apace and likely to continue so in favor of the growing progressive patchwork or at least the Democrat vote.
So who's it gonna be? Bobby Jingles? Rughead Trump (again)? Chris Christie? Marco Rubio?
I can just see the women, latinos, blacks, natives and youth running to vote for that lot!
For the Dems I'm pretty sure about Hilary Clinton and possibly Julia Castro, either of whom in an honest system would trump (no joke intended) any of the Reprobates from the above list.
They're going to have to work hard at gerrymandering to keep their diminished and diminishing demographic and relevance alive.
As long as all states do it. If blue states are all proportional, while red states are all winner-take-all , no Democrat will ever obtain the White House no matter what the popular vote might be.
Democracy is a process that ensures the people get the government they deserve. Time to stop listening and keep ears tuned and eyes focused on legislation.
I'd like to see news stations spending more time on legislative action. There is always going to be scheming against our democracy.
Some states have passed laws awarding all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. If a combination of states holding the majority of the electoral votes did so, it would basically nullify the electoral college without having to change the constitution, and eliminate the gerrymandering impact on the presidential race. Seems like a winner to me.
RSS feed for comments to this post