HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » The GOP's Electoral Colle...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:50 AM

The GOP's Electoral College Scheme to win the white house

But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage.

All three states have given the Democratic nominee their electoral votes in each of the last six presidential elections. Now, senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in all three states to end the winner-take-all system.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

7 replies, 977 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 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply The GOP's Electoral College Scheme to win the white house (Original post)
UCmeNdc Dec 2012 OP
graham4anything Dec 2012 #1
davidpdx Dec 2012 #3
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #4
graham4anything Dec 2012 #5
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #6
graham4anything Dec 2012 #7
jimmy the one Dec 2012 #2

Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:01 AM

1. Democrats should demand the same in Texas

 

the repubs though always mess around, and in the end, hurt themselves.

President Obama just won a massive landslide popular vote election, and is now one of only 6 presidents ever to win 2 elections with 51% of the vote or more.

So electoral or popular, it matters little.

Democrats have more voters and shall continue no matter what game the repub/tea/libertarians play.

And Texas will soon be blue. Therefore, once Texas is blue, then the same could be done there and Texas is the last state with many electoral votes that is not blue.

End of game losers-the repub/tea/libertarians forever.

BTW-what would end up happening in those states are the bozo 3rd party extremists like Ron Paul would focus and secure a victory, so in end, would deny the repubs of even more electoral votes than they have now, and make the Dems even a bigger winner.

(this reminds me of how republicans changed the law after FDR so no president had more than 2 terms, and the first two presidents it affected was IKE and Reagan who both could have won a 3rd term. Don't they learn not to mess around? It hurts them in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:37 AM

3. For once I agree with you

Apparently hell hasn't frozen over. As Tweety would say, HA!

I also agree that 3rd parties would be more likely to pick off electoral votes in some areas of the country that they were well organized hurting the Republicans.

Maybe someone can look through all of the 438 electoral districts and see if Johnson won one. I guess that would be a bit of a chore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:15 AM

4. For this election, Romney would have won under this system

The spreadsheet that says what the popular votes for all Congressional districts were also says who the presidential winner in each district was. I just totalled them; Romney would have won 225 districts, and Obama 206 (with a few still incomplete results). And, while Obama won 26 states+DC, and Romney 24, that wouldn't have been enough to stop Romney winning the EC under these rules, if all states followed them. Because Republicans have gerrymandered the congressional districts in many places.

Yes, in the long term demographic change would reverse that; but that change will also make Democratic victories more likely under the present system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:05 PM

5. are you saying all states, or just the 4 considering changing?

 

because there is nothing to say the other states besides the 2 that already have this and the 4 he wants changed, would change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:22 PM

6. All states - since you mentioned Texas

which isn't in the article, so I presume you were saying "what if all states changed - we'd get some EC seats in Texas". I can't see a count of 4 considering changing, however - the article mentions Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and then Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, 'in the long run'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:30 PM

7. then it wouldn't change things for 2016 and by 2020 Texas should be blue all around

 

they would be foolish to try it, but then they gerrymandered everything and foolish they are

so its the 2 that have it, 3 more, then others later.

They will find they can't game the system. People are wise to their tactics, and this won't go quiet.

By 2016, other red states can be blue no matter which one of the candidates will be their choice.

Now, there is that other change some states want, that all electoral votes go to the winner of popular vote, but that is something that will lead to solid democratic wins anyhow

The key will be women voters and Hispanic voters along with the other groups.
Women voters as a group don't like men playing games with their lives, that was proven this time, and will be more so if the Dems run a woman for President nominee next time and the time after.

I really think Hillary will get districts the republicans would not have dreamed of losing in 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:06 AM

2. Don't mess with filibuster, just electoral college

link: ..rewriting the rules would dramatically shrink or eliminate the Democratic advantage, because of the way House districts are drawn. The decennial redistricting process has dumped huge percentages of Democratic voters into some urban districts, while Republican voters are spread over a wider number of districts, giving the party an advantage. This year, Democratic House candidates won more than 1 million more votes than Republican candidates, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

Funny how republicans don't want filibuster rules changed a bit since it's in the constitution, yet don't mind changing electoral college rules a lot, even tho it's in the constitution.
When it goes their way the constitution rules, when it doesn't go their way sweep the constitution under the rug, eh?
.. and the link says repubs want to make the electoral system more 'fair', yet what is fair about redistricting to repub advantage, where dems could win the urban city & thus perhaps twice as many popular votes in the state, yet repubs would get more electoral votes due district apportioning thereof?

Obama won all three states {Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin} in 2008, handing him 46
electoral votes because of the winner-take-all system. Had electoral votes been awarded by district, Romney would have cut into that lead. Final election results show that Romney won 9 of Michigan's 14 districts, 5 of 8 Wisconsin, at least 12 of 18 in Pennsylvania. Allocate the two statewide votes in each state to Obama and that means Romney would have emerged from those three Democratic states with 26 electoral votes, compared with just 19 for Obama..


Wait! obama won pennsy 52-47%, michigan 54-45, wisc 53-46, which translates into obama ahead millions of votes in all 3 states combined!
And romney would get 26 evs to obamas 19? And repubs say THATS FAIR??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread