HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Secretary of State Jon Hu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:58 PM

Secretary of State Jon Husted & other Republicans say Electoral College changes not in store for OH

Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

Secretary of State Jon Husted and other Republicans say Electoral College changes not in store for Ohio

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Count Ohio's Republican leaders out of a GOP-backed effort to end the Electoral College's winner-take-all format in the Buckeye State and other presidential battlegrounds.

Spokesmen for Gov. John Kasich, State Senate President Keith Faber and House Speaker William G. Batchelder told The Plain Dealer this week that they are not pursuing plans to award electoral votes proportionally by congressional district.

Batchelder went a step further, saying through his communications director that he "is not supportive of such a move." And Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted, the state's chief elections administrator, emphasized that he does not favor the plan either, despite Democratic suspicions based on reported comments that he said were taken out of context.

"Nobody in Ohio is advocating this," Husted said in a telephone interview.

Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/01/secretary_of_state_jon_husted_2.html



Victory For Democracy! Ohio Republicans Will Not Rig The Electoral College
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/29/1511561/victory-for-democracy-ohio-republicans-will-not-rig-the-electoral-college/

21 replies, 2477 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 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Secretary of State Jon Husted & other Republicans say Electoral College changes not in store for OH (Original post)
kpete Jan 2013 OP
louis-t Jan 2013 #1
SnowCritter Jan 2013 #2
mpcamb Jan 2013 #20
madashelltoo Jan 2013 #3
progree Jan 2013 #4
coldbeer Jan 2013 #5
leftyohiolib Jan 2013 #6
AnnieK401 Jan 2013 #8
Arkana Jan 2013 #7
LaPera Jan 2013 #9
Mz Pip Jan 2013 #10
progree Jan 2013 #15
John2 Jan 2013 #17
Mz Pip Jan 2013 #19
Faux pas Jan 2013 #11
FarPoint Jan 2013 #12
PFunk Jan 2013 #13
FarPoint Jan 2013 #14
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #16
bemildred Jan 2013 #18
mpcamb Jan 2013 #21

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:59 PM

1. I...don't....trust....them.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:09 PM

2. Yeah! What you said!

Not as far as I could throw them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:28 AM

20. My fear is that...

They wait till shortly before the next election and Ohio, VA, Florida and all the other gerrymandered swing state pass this.
Time is now for a Dump the Electoral College amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:23 PM

3. These guys NEVER follow the rules.

Not even when the judge orders them. Husted has gone rogue before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:27 PM

4. Right, Gov. Rick Snyder said it was not a priority to bust unions in Michigan

Then in just a few days during the lame duck legislature session, Michigan became a right-to-work-for-less state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:30 PM

5. They just want it out of the news for now

We have way to many Republican office holders in Ohio
and next election we can thin them out! These are
the men that talk jobs jobs jobs and do not mention
womens rights or unions until after the election.

You damn betcha you cannot trust them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:58 PM

6. he left off the end which said "for now"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:08 PM

8. Exactly

We can't let our guard down for a minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:02 PM

7. But they'll continue being enormous fucking tools, so don't get too excited.

Still, good to see that Ohio and Virginia aren't jumping on this moron train.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:41 PM

9. NEVER believe what republicans say NEVER - when few are watching they will always lie & do the slimy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:50 PM

10. I have a theory.

I think these GOPers in some of these purple states think they have a shot of turning the states red in 2016. They don't want to dilute that chance by divvying up the electoral votes.

And some of these folks need a few democrats to vote for them if they want to be reelected. They'd be screwed royally on that one if they pulled a stunt like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:08 PM

15. Under new electoral scheme: Ohio: 14 R, 4 D elec votes, so I think they'd go for that net of 10 R

rather than risk all to get 18 Repub electoral votes at the risk of instead ending up with 18 Dem electoral votes. Even assuming a 70% probability of the Republican winning the state-wide vote, the new electoral scheme is a better bet (see below)

In my subject line, I'm assuming the same congressional district results in 2016 as in 2012.

(Remembering that in the map below, they are only showing the congressional districts -- 1 electoral vote per congressional district -- but each state gets 2 more electoral votes (1 for each senator). So for Ohio, for example, there are 16 congressional districts plus they (like all states) have 2 senators, for a total of 18 electoral votes.)

According to the new scheme, the 2 senatorial electoral votes will be allocated to the presidential candidate that wins the most congressional districts. So in Ohio's case, under the new electoral scheme, if 2016 came out like 2012 as far as congressional district results, the Repubs would get 12+2= 14 electoral votes, while the Dems would get 4 electoral votes.

So the probabilistic risk assessment is:

Say you are a RepubliCON and you are assuming a very optimisitic 70% chance of winning the Ohio state-wide popular vote

1. Stay with current electoral system.
=============================
. a. Repub candidate wins with 70% probability and gets 18 elec. votes
. b. Dem candidate wins with with 30% probability and gets 18 elec. votes
Probabilistic expected outcome: 70%*18 - 30%*18 = 7.2 R votes

2. Switch to new electoral scheme
=============================
(and pessimistically (from the Repub viewpoint) assume the same congressional district results as in 2012, when Obama won statewide by a 1.9% margin)
Repub candidates gets a net of 14 R -4 D = 10 R votes

So the new electoral scheme is likely to produce more electoral votes for the Republican candidate than the current system, even assuming a very high 7:3 odds that the Republican wins the statewide popular vote.

The below link shows 12 battleground states: Repubs have trifecta in 7 (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NC, Florida), Dems in 2 (Minnesota and Colorado), and split government in 3 (Nevada, Iowa, N.H.) -- Its a long long article. (trifecta means that one party has the governorship and both houses of the legislature)
https://www.freespeech.org/text/rigging-democracy

According to the above article, had such a plan (each congressional district's winner gets that electoral vote and the 2 senatorial electoral votes go to the winner of the most congressional districts) been enacted in 2012 in all seven swing states now under Republican control, Mitt Romney’s 126-vote defeat in the Electoral College would have been transformed into a 16-vote victory.

"And some of these folks need a few democrats to vote for them if they want to be reelected. They'd be screwed royally on that one if they pulled a stunt like that."

I think that's the bigger consideration -- and besides a few Dem's votes, they need a good chunk of swing voters / independents (at least a slim majority of these) in order to win. Few of these voters likely would want to see their state's impact in a presidential election split and watered down.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:34 AM

17. I wouldn't leave out

 

the Governors and Senators of these States in your hypothetical scheme by Republican legislators. That scheme can be extended to Governor and Senatorial candidates who enjoy winning the popular votes of their states and not subject to the will of a minority.

2014 is an election year. Many Governors and Senators also come up on the Ballots. I assume the Governors of Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin should be facing an election soon. And wehen does the Michigan Governor face re-election? All those Governorships can turn Blue too. Governors have veto power, unless Legislatures can get enough votes to override them. So if they can't sneak their power grab through now, they may never sneak it through after the midterm turnover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:20 AM

19. Thanks!

That's impressive and detailed.

It looks like they are more concerned about their own personal job security at this point. I doubted it was anything like being concerned about ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:05 PM

11. I wouldn't believe any of them

if their tongues came notarized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 07:36 PM

12. It's a diversion tactic...

Put the word out in hopes folks buy the good deed facade...then switch-up when no one is looking. Yea...that is Husted's style alright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:31 PM

13. Bingo.

Which is why THIS NEEDS TO STAY ON THE FRONT BURNER right up to 2014 (and beyond).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PFunk (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:43 PM

14. Many of us in Ohio are on this....

Me especially as are my very active democratic friends and leaders in Dayton Ohio....Like Dennis Lieberman...he was the BOE official fired in Montgomery County by Husted. Remember back in August when the battle of extended voting and the weekend option was front page news?

Husted is from Dayton...we know his behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:29 PM

16. Translation: We're going to do it the minute no one's looking

They learned their lesson in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:34 AM

18. +1.

Whenever they say "nobody is thinking ... " that means somebody is thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:37 PM

21. Therefore...

That's the important part.

THEREFORE....

What can we do about it?
How do we counteract this?

Where do we go from here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread