HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Pennsylvania House Republ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:16 PM

Pennsylvania House Republicans Introduce Bill To RIG The 2016 Presidential Election


If The GOP Election Rigging Plan Were In Effect,
This Man Would Have Won The Electoral College Last November



Voters Beware! Republicans don't give a hoot about your precious, free-to-choose vote. THEY are the FACIST PARTY!!





Earlier this week, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus endorsed a Republican plan to rig the next presidential election to make it nearly impossible for the Democratic candidate to win the White House, no matter who the American people vote for. The election-rigging plan, which would allocate electoral votes by congressional district rather than by states as a whole in a handful of states that consistently vote for Democratic presidential candidates, would have allowed Mitt Romney to narrowly win the Electoral College last November despite losing the popular vote by nearly four points.


On Monday, seven Pennsylvania Republican state representatives introduced a bill to make this vote-rigging scheme a reality in their state. Under their bill, the winner of Pennsylvania as a whole will receive only 2 of the state’s 20 electoral votes, while “ach of the remaining presidential electors shall be elected in the presidential elector’s congressional district.”


Pennsylvania is a blue state that voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every single presidential race for the last two decades, so implementing the GOP election-rigging plan in Pennsylvania would make it much harder for a Democrat to be elected to the White House. Moreover, because of gerrymandering, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Republican candidate will win a majority of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes even if the Democrat wins the state by a very comfortable margin. Despite the fact that President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points last November, Democrats carried only 5 of the state’s 18 congressional seats. Accordingly, Obama would have likely won only 7 of the state’s 20 electoral votes if the GOP vote rigging plan had been in effect last year.


One mitigating factor is that only 7 of the Pennsylvania House’s 109 Republicans are original sponsors of the election-rigging bill, so it is unclear that this is a major priority for the GOP state house caucus. Nevertheless, both Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-PA) support the plan, so there is a real risk that Pennsylvania Republicans will try to write the voters out of the next presidential election.





http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/16/1451351/pennsylvania-house-republicans-introduce-bill-to-rig-the-2016-presidential-election/

20 replies, 1461 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pennsylvania House Republicans Introduce Bill To RIG The 2016 Presidential Election (Original post)
Segami Jan 2013 OP
graham4anything Jan 2013 #1
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #2
graham4anything Jan 2013 #4
CreekDog Jan 2013 #5
graham4anything Jan 2013 #9
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #10
CreekDog Jan 2013 #12
graham4anything Jan 2013 #15
frylock Jan 2013 #16
graham4anything Jan 2013 #19
frylock Jan 2013 #20
RDANGELO Jan 2013 #3
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #8
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #11
RDANGELO Jan 2013 #14
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #17
Mc Mike Jan 2013 #6
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #7
graham4anything Jan 2013 #13
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #18

Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:18 PM

1. this has been debunked now 4 times. Obama still would have won, and Hillary45 will win next time

 

because this would require a constant that won't exist as stated in yesterdays post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:22 PM

2. I've seen nothing debunking this.

 

They are going after Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with similar legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

4. but it relies on constants and constants don't remain constant. A river keeps flowing

 

and they still would not have made up the difference, nor if it had been in place in 2009, would it have affected 2012

because the constants would have changed

it is more of the same defeatest stolen election meme which is a loser meme

and President Obama and next President Clinton45 are winners, not losers.

Hillary will win at least 5 red states in 2016 and the governor's races will be changed as will so many of the republicans in house office now in 2018.

again, the supposition that nothing but that would change is ridiculous.

more, aww, we are going to lose why bother voting defeatest 3rd party attitudes.

Had dems not fractured and / or made stupid 3rd party votes in prior races, Dems would have never given up the white house from FDR to the present.
Without a doubt, all the republcians would have lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:33 PM

5. hasn't been debunked at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:41 PM

9. But it wouldn't happen. Another defeatest attitude. Same as saying there were thefts

 

No, it wasn't the thefts- it was not enough Democratic voters in 2000 and 2004.
It wasn't theft in 2000.
Five to 10 million people just didn't vote, it was the lowest vote total in modern times.
The charts after 2012 showed clearly that was the case.

it was the idiots that voted for Nader and Ron Paul and the ones that thought they were smug and smart staying home and not voting.

2000 and 2010 proved how dumb the protest non-voters or 3rd party voters were

(and 2004 kerry lost.)

A ruling by a corrupt court happeneed 12/12/2000, but the election was lost 11/2000, a month earlier.

And not allowing Bill Clinton, who easily would have won reelection if he would have run a 3rd time to campaign in 2000 was about the dumbest thing possible.(let by rightwing memes telling Gore not to let the stained by sex Bill help out.)

Were they to change the system, the constants would change, and be adjusted for

as Willie Nelson said "still is still moving to me".
one change does not mean all the other constants remained constant

it is simple raw number statistical facts.

Besides, Texas will be blue, so what happens in PA would then happen in Texas meaning the 2nd largest state would give 1/2 their red votes to Hillary45 in 2016.

As she is poised to win close to 450 electoral votes, even losing 100 wouldn't matter anyhow.

And I love Eric Holder, and the greatest AG (tied with Janet Reno) of all time, will do the right thing.
And the courts will never back an election issue again anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:47 PM

10. Can we at least get a de-bunked link. I'm curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:55 PM

12. how many votes total in 2012?



give me a total and a percentage to back up your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:15 PM

15. Post #13 has the vote totals for 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012

 

and again, one to follow the thinking is saying only Mitt's totals would have changed and those totals mean 2016 (as 2012 had the rules currently in place).

Now, what if Chris Christie is the nominee in 2016?
And he wins PA (which is far more likely than defeating Hillary in NJ, Christie's home state, which is much further blue.

Were a republican to win PA under the new rules, it means 1/2 of PA's electoral votes would go to the democratic candidate.

Every time republicans change laws to attempt to suit them, it backfires
The amendment for only 2 terms for instance.

Two republicans would have won a 3rd term had they been able, both Eisenhower and Reagan,
and had there been more than 2 terms allowed, far better candidate Bill Clinton would easily have won a 3rd term.

SO they have struck out 3 times because of that change they instituted (because had Bill been able to run, Bush never would have become president in the first place.)

That is what means by constants don't remain constant

An entire campaign would be run differently with different rules in place

And Mitt still would have lost.

(And Hillary will win KT, Arkansas, and Tenn and maybe Georgia and Texas anyhow.
SO all those votes will go to her.

(or some of them).

So it would be different, not constant.

IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:09 PM

16. you've just debunked every one of your bullshit talking points in this post..

with your nonsense about nader. tell you what, i'll continue to believe what actual investigative journos like Greg Palast have to say rather than some anonymous poster on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:27 PM

19. Palast is a conspiracy theorist who makes money being controversial.

 

Nader is the cause

those that voted for Nader are the cause

like it or not, there are only two choices

vote democratic or vote against the democratic party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:29 PM

20. okay then..

*slowly backs away*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:25 PM

3. I don't see why the justice department wouldn't block it.

I'm glad Holder is staying on. Pennsylvania falls under the Voting Rights Act, and this obviously affects minority voters. They can't stop them from voting, so they make so it does not count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:41 PM

8. PA, MI, OH, and WI are not subject to the restrictions in the VRA.

 

And it would be unconstitutional for the DOJ to stop this as the states choose the method of choosing electors.

Elections have consequences. Electing asshole Republicans to be in charge of state legislatures has HUGE consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:49 PM

11. It's end up in the Supreme Court, the DOJ has no power over how the states divide up EVs

The issue is going to be Article II, Section I:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:


This is allowed under the Constitution. A state has the right to divide up it's electoral votes however it pleases. Maine and Nebraska already divide their votes up by congressional district. This is considered an enshrined right of the states.

Now if many states decide to do this all at once and it seems like an orchestrated attempt to accomplish something, maybe you could consider it collusion. It'd be the Supreme Court that ends up deciding that. The Constitution DOES forbid a group of states from creating pacts...unless Congress votes to allow it. So it could potentially be considered a conspiracy.

So that's supposed to be the check and balance in regards to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:10 PM

14. Yes, but since the states are severely gerrymandered,

That would mean to me that all votes are not given the same weight. If the state is gerrymandered in a way that strongly favors one party over another, it means that the favored party's votes are given more weight than the others. The supreme court intervened in Bush v Gore supposedly because all voters were not being treated equally in the recount because there weren't strict enough guidelines.
That's what comes to my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:39 PM

17. But that is two different things

The Constitution says specifically that it is up to the state how it's electoral votes are determined. The Federal government has no right to change that because the electoral college itself is considered a check on federal power.

How the districts are drawn is NOT in the federal constitution. Most states have laws against gerrymandering, but when the lawmakers are the ones breaking the law, it shouldn't surprise you that no one seems to get in trouble or held accountable. It's a bug in our country's operating system. There are a few flaws in the government...and that's one.

The founders didnt consider specifying the drawing of districts in the constitution for a few reasons. For one they never imagined it would be a problem. There was no way for them to know how political divisions (parties) were going to form. And second, they considered such a thing to be a state issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:36 PM

6. They do seem to spend their time plotting and scheming how to

subvert and destroy our Democracy. Treasonous swine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:37 PM

7. time to get rid of the electoral college

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:08 PM

13. Total votes, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012- 2000 was lost because of democratic voter disinterest

 

It wasn't the supreme court, it was the lack of democratic voters wanting to vote,
and to me, 10 million minimum voters stayed home believing Ralph Naders bullshit about both parties being the same.
And not caring, not coming out to vote




2012

Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote Running mate
Count Pct Vice-presidential candidate Home state Elect. vote
Barack Obama Democratic Illinois 65,899,660 51.03% 332 Joe Biden Delaware 332
Mitt Romney Republican Massachusetts 60,929,152 47.18% 206 Paul Ryan Wisconsin 206
Gary Johnson Libertarian New Mexico 1,275,827 0.99% 0 James P. Gray California 0
Jill Stein Green Massachusetts 468,907 0.36% 0 Cheri Honkala Pennsylvania 0
Virgil Goode Constitution Virginia 122,378 0.09% 0 Jim Clymer Pennsylvania 0
Roseanne Barr Peace and Freedom Hawaii 67,359 0.05% 0 Cindy Sheehan California 0
Rocky Anderson Justice Utah 42,995 0.03% 0 Luis J. Rodriguez California 0
Tom Hoefling America's Iowa 40,609 0.03% 0 Jonathan D. Ellis Tennessee 0
Other 282,784 0.22% — Other —
Total 129,129,671 100% 538 538
Needed to win 270 270


2008
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote Running mate
Count Pct Vice-presidential candidate Home state Elect. vote
Barack Obama Democratic Illinois 69,498,516 52.93% 365 Joe Biden Delaware 365
John McCain Republican Arizona 59,948,323 45.65% 173 Sarah Palin Alaska 173
Ralph Nader Independent Connecticut 739,034 0.56% 0 Matt Gonzalez California 0
Bob Barr Libertarian Georgia 523,715 0.40% 0 Wayne Allyn Root Nevada 0
Chuck Baldwin Constitution Florida 199,750 0.15% 0 Darrell Castle Tennessee 0
Cynthia McKinney Green Georgia 161,797 0.12% 0 Rosa Clemente North Carolina 0
Other 242,685 0.18% — Other —
Total 131,313,820 100% 538 538 Needed to win 270 270


2004
George W. Bush Republican Texas 62,040,610 50.73% 286 Dick Cheney Wyoming 286
John F. Kerry Democratic Massachusetts 59,028,444 48.27% 251 John Edwards North Carolina 251
John Edwards Democratic North Carolina —(a) —(a) 1 John Edwards North Carolina 1
Ralph Nader Independent Connecticut 465,151 0.38% 0 Peter Camejo California 0
Michael Badnarik Libertarian Texas 397,265 0.32% 0 Richard Campagna Iowa 0
Michael Peroutka Constitution Maryland 143,630 0.12% 0 Chuck Baldwin Florida 0
David Cobb Green Texas 119,859 0.10% 0 Pat LaMarche Maine 0
Leonard Peltier Peace and Freedom Pennsylvania 27,607 0.02% 0 Janice Jordan California 0
Walt Brown Socialist Oregon 10,837 0.01% 0 Mary Alice Herbert Vermont 0
Róger Calero(b) Socialist Workers New York 10,791 0.01% 0 Arrin Hawkins(b) Minnesota 0
Other 50,652 0.04% — Other —
Total 122,294,846 100% 538 538 Needed to win 270 270


Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote Running mate
Count Pct Vice-presidential candidate Home state Elect. vote
George W. Bush Republican Texas 50,456,002 47.87% 271 Dick Cheney Wyoming 271
Al Gore Democratic Tennessee 50,999,897 48.38% 266 Joe Lieberman Connecticut 266
Ralph Nader Green Connecticut 2,882,955 2.74% 0 Winona LaDuke Minnesota 0
Pat Buchanan Reform Virginia 448,895 0.43% 0 Ezola B. Foster California 0
Harry Browne Libertarian Tennessee 384,431 0.36% 0 Art Olivier California 0
Howard Phillips Constitution Virginia 98,020 0.09% 0 Curtis Frazier Missouri 0
John Hagelin Natural Law Iowa 83,714 0.08% 0 Nat Goldhaber California 0
Other(b) 51,186 0.05% — Other(b) —
(abstention)(a) — — — — 1 (abstention)(a) — 1
Total 105,405,100 100% 538 538

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:40 PM

18. RNC P.R. B.S. at it again, I see.....

They can't fight fair, so they'll just play dirty instead, even worse than usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread