Some Republican-controlled legislatures are moving ahead with plans to change the way their states apportion Electoral College delegates. It’s not a particularly smart idea. If Virginia or Pennsylvania or some other state decides to change their system to create an advantage for the next Republican presidential candidate, that will obviously make it easier for that candidate to win the presidency. At least, it could, if the change sticks. The next election is four years away and the Democrats could retake control of those state legislatures and change the rules back to the way they have always been. The real problem, though, is that Barack Obama would still have won the presidency even if the Republicans had made these rules changes in all the states where they now have the technical power to do it.
It’s true that Romney would have won the election if all 50 states awarded their delegates according to who won each congressional district, but that’s not what the Republicans are trying to do. They are trying to change the rules in just a few blue states that voted for Obama but in which Romney carried more than half of the districts. That kind of change would have made the election closer, but it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Obviously, these changes have the potential to alter the outcome of the 2016 election, but they are not a good substitute for fielding a more appealing candidate. In a very real way, this effort to change the rules smacks of desperation. It not only will galvanize the left for the midterms (so we can try to repeal the reforms), but it delegitimizes the eventual Republican nominee, the Republican Party, and our entire electoral system. Imagine if Romney had become president after losing by four percentage points and nearly five million votes! Does anyone think that would have been a healthy outcome?
But, you may remember, I predicted that this would happen. The GOP does not want to change and they will do what they can to compensate for their increasing unpopularity even if it means bending or outright breaking the rules. They are a neo-fascist party, and quite dangerous.
It seems all the rage to be upset about this. But I just can’t bring the anger. All that it takes to negate this is to expand the map to one more state. And then the shoe is on the other foot. Republicans cannot win without Ohio, but what if their electoral votes are split in Ohio? Then Ohio becomes worthless to Republicans as a ‘tipping point’. Dilution usually won’t work when you are behind.
It looks like one of those desperation tactics that end up back backfiring. A Republican specialty.
.
At least superficially, it is legal. In a state like Virginia, with a history of Jim Crow, there will be scrutiny about the purpose of the change and whether it disenfranchises blacks. Pennsylvania would be a harder case to make, although it could technically be judged discriminatory. But the fact that Nebraska and Maine already split their delegates means that the rule change, in itself, is not a legal problem.
However, it will not be appreciated by most people and it will make the GOP look very bad. While it could pay off in the end, I find it unlikely. It reminds me of an addict who knows he has a problem but decides to engage in bargaining rather than address their addiction.
The endorsement of Stonewall Jackson Day — the same day as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day — was the cherry on top.
Oh sure, Lee-Jackson-King Day hasn’t been officially recognized since 2000, and it was simply just “adjourning in memory of Stonewall Jackson,” but everyone knows Virginia has totally put the Confederacy and the VRA behind it. So we can just let Cooch to get around preclearance then, yeah?
Lee-Jackson-KING day??? How preposterous!
Only in America.
Only in the South.
It’s Virginia! Robert E Lee born Jan 19. One asks “don’t they sort of cancel each other out”? Lee Jackson-King day?
I don’t think is gonna work for the GOP either. But interestingly, in the Virginia governorship race, Terry McAuliffe of all people just got handed a gift from the electoral gods. Securing his victory is going to be a huge priority for Democrats across the country. The guy seems sleazy as hell but he’s going to run as a champion of good government. In a tight race that issue alone could well give him the edge.
Demographic changes alone will add roughly 2 million votes to the Democratic presidential vote in 2016. Now assume an unemployment rate around 6% and tens of millions of people having experienced the benefits of Obamacare.
We could easily be looking at a 6-10 million vote margin of victory in the popular vote for the 2016 Democratic candidate.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that President Ryan (or whichever Republican gets elected by a 269-269 electoral vote tie broken by a House vote by state delegations, a majority of which are controlled by Republicans) doesn’t have the political chops to pull it off.
I’m not angry, I’m afraid. I’d really like to hear more about this. Nalbar, expanding your thoughts would be welcomed by me.
I’m not angry because I think it’s likely to work. I’m angry because it’s a reprehensible attempt to undermine democracy and disenfranchise voters, especially African American voters.
If congressional districts are already drawn to favor Republicans, how do Dems retake control and rejigger the electoral process? The next election with no incumbent will likely be closer. If the electoral college was eliminated and it was just a popular vote, that’s one thing, but this is a bald faced steal attempt and I hope Obama and the national party gets on the bullhorn about this.
A more neutral way of saying the same thing.
Seems that trying to push through redistricting laws is the way to go. Didn’t this help Dems in Florida and California, and improve Democracy there. What if OFA pushed for these types of laws EVERYWHERE, including:
-no drawing boundaries for partisan political gain
-respecting existing community boundaries
– creating compact districts
-creating competitive districts
Seems this could be the perfect response. There’s an article about this in Ohio up on Huffpo right now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-moulthrop/hope-for-redistricting-re_b_2546187.html
Totally agree that Republicans aren’t pursuing a healthy approach to their electoral problem for exactly the reason you say. But I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the Republican and Democratic parties don’t think like each other. Republicans feel entitled to power and will behave that way regardless of the circumstance that gave it to them. When we think about this issue, we should be sure not to imagine that losing the popular vote will do anything but embolden an elected Republican.
But ALL elected representatives seem to feel entitled to keeping their seat even if it means drawing a ridiculous district that allows them to choose which voters will be voting for them.
The reason I think we should pursue redistricting reform is that it’s a perfect example of “both sides do it” that allows us to land on the right side of an issue, claiming the higher ground. I could resonate.
Tee hee! IT could resonate.
Hey, you could resonate too. Don’t sell yourself short.
Both sides gerrymander and will look for the electoral advantage. But only one side has leaders who say that God wants them to win, who question the literal legitimacy of their opponents’ victories when there’s no legal basis to do so, and who are driven to use any means necessary (see Virginia) to confer power on themselves. Bush II lost the popular vote, but you’d never know it by the way he assumed power. Obama won outright, but in the first weeks of his presidency went to Capitol Hill to meet with Republicans alone with a stimulus bill that was designed to appeal to the interests of the minority. These are differences between individuals but the parties tend to choose leaders with these consistent differences.
is a statewide constitutional amendment in each of these states to preserve the current approach, or to go to the “cast the EV of the state for the PV winner” method. Each of these states are majority D, but have been gerrymandered to have unfair internal districts. These may even be a violation of “one man one vote” approaches.
This is both dangerous and stupid. The Repukeliscum are desperate. But a cornered rat is the most dangerous.
“The GOP does not want to change and they will do what they can to compensate for their increasing unpopularity even if it means bending or outright breaking the rules.”
Absolutely. They are, as the saying goes, all “crooks and liars.”
“They are a neo-fascist party, and quite dangerous.”
Nah, they are no worse, really, than the Democrats.
The GOP, for example, wants to restrict the franchise to friendly voters.
But the Dems are out to turn 10 million illegal immigrants they expect mostly to vote for them into voting citizens.
YEAH, Philo.
And guess what? A SHITPOT load of them are from TEXAS!!!!
OK, so this last part is completely unfair. Democratic Party leaders are not responsible for the Republican Party’s current xenophobic statements and policies. There is nothing which prevents the GOP from competing for the votes of these new citizens, other than their own racism or misguided views.
Among the real, better reasons for resolving the issue of undocumented Americans:
Just for the sake of argument, can’t the GOP in Virginia say the same thing about voters in the new districts that it created — that Republican leaders aren’t responsible for the Democratic Party’s current [insert pejorative] statements and policies that make them unable to compete for the votes in all of Virginia’s districts?
Not when the Virginia Legislators are explicitly, or at least highly implicitly, announcing that their redistricting and Electoral College changes are meant specifically to gain them, their voters, and their Congressional and Presidential candidates advantage.
According to Josh Marshall today, Romney would have won if this scheme had been in effect.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/this_is_a_big_big_deal.php?ref=fpblg
read carefully. Josh didn’t say Romney would have won if the states contemplating this change had voted by district. He said that Romney would have won if the whole country did it that way. Which is exactly what I said.
Perhaps that’s what he meant, but what he said was, I see now, ambiguous because he said “as Republicans are now planning to do”, while making it clear in the same article that what the Republicans are planning to do, of which the Virginia ploy is a part, is partition the electoral vote in specified states, not universally.