HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If you can't win election...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:41 AM

If you can't win elections, rig them (Republican assault on democracy)

If you can't win elections, rig them

By Steve Benen

We've been keeping a close eye on state Republican officials hoping to rig electoral-vote distribution so that only GOP candidates are able to be elected president. As Rachel noted on the show last night, there are several states considering election-rigging schemes -- Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania -- but Virginia is the first to advance an actual plan.

<...>

Dave Weigel had a terrific report yesterday afternoon on the efforts of Virginia Republicans, noting that if the preferred GOP system had been in place last year, President Obama would have defeated Mitt Romney by 150,000 votes, but when it came time to distribute electoral votes, Romney would have won nine votes to Obama's four. Or put another way, the Democrat would win 51% of the popular vote, but 30% of the electoral-college vote. It is, quite obviously, a plan "designed to disenfranchise Democrats," Weigel concluded.

<...>

And just to reiterate a point from several weeks ago, the fact that this is happening in Virginia, of all places, warrants special attention.

Let's put it this way: at least in Pennsylvania the GOP scheme is understandable, albeit disgusting. It's historically been a competitive swing state, but in six of the last six elections, the Democratic presidential candidate has won, usually pretty easily. With this in mind, it stands to reason that Keystone State Republicans would conclude, "Our candidate probably isn't going to win statewide anytime soon, but if we rig electoral-vote allocation, we can still help our guy win the election."

But Virginia is a very different political environment. In the last 60 years, only two Democratic presidential candidates have won the commonwealth: LBJ in his 1964 landslide and Barack Obama. That's it. Even Bill Clinton lost the state twice, and he was very competitive throughout the South in both of his races.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/24/16677359-if-you-cant-win-elections-rig-them

6 replies, 684 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 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply If you can't win elections, rig them (Republican assault on democracy) (Original post)
ProSense Jan 2013 OP
graham4anything Jan 2013 #1
sadbear Jan 2013 #4
graham4anything Jan 2013 #5
lpbk2713 Jan 2013 #2
NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #3
Scurrilous Jan 2013 #6

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:45 AM

1. It's a red herring to get rid of the electoral college. Don't fall for it. IMHO

 

because constants don't remain constants
and when Texas turns blue, same could be done for Texas in 2024

so its a red herring

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:06 AM

4. Do you not think a popular vote is more democratic, especially in these time?

Is physical campaigning really that important to a candidate's success? (serious question)

With TV and internet, don't people have plenty of access to candidates these days without having to see them in person?

Yes, I know that the electoral college is swinging our way big time, but shouldn't our goal ultimately be one person, one vote (or all votes counting equally)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:36 AM

5. Not anytime soon, until the 100% of the vote is secure, and there is 50% runnoff,same day

 

1992 showed that someone could win with just 41% of the vote.
Where it a popular vote under today's system, it would ensure more people like Nader are paid off to take away votes.

One would need all votes secure, and a definite need to have runoff,same day if the top 2 don't hit 50%.

Until then, thanks but no thanks.

Also, at this point, not convinced a sudden change to only popular, wouldn't lead to ultra
situations.

What would stop a corrupt police or state(say Arizona today), from arresting every single
voter against them on trumped up charges?

It borders on extreme danger.

The head in the sand is rushing to change something, with totally thinking every single angle through.

Arnold Schwarznegger only won Gov. of Calif. because he came in very end and ambushed all common sense. Had that campaign been normal length, it would not have happened, he would have burnt out.

BTW-if its one man one vote, one also would need to then reexamine the whole primary system.

Is one man, one vote for every single candidate only in Nov?
What about primaries, conventions, caucus'?

again, one can't just change one aspect and expect all others to remain constant.
It don't work that way.
and normally, mob rush to judgements end up being proven wrong very quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:00 AM

2. It's always worked for them in the past.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:49 PM

6. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread