HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » GOP lawmakers propose new...

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:04 PM

GOP lawmakers propose new rules to allocate Electoral College votes

Source: Seattle Times


January 29, 2013 at 6:00 AM

Posted by Jim Brunner

President Obama easily carried Washington state last year with 56 percent of the vote to Mitt
Romney’s 41 percent. That granted Obama all of the state’s 12 Electoral College votes.
But some Republican state lawmakers want to change the rules in a way that would have peeled off some electoral votes for Romney. The proposal, House Bill 1091, would divvy up Washington’s electoral votes by results in each of the state’s 10 congressional districts, with the remaining two votes going to the statewide winner.

In 2012, that would have given Obama nine electoral votes fromWashington while Romney would have taken three. Supporters say that would be a fairer result for more conservative parts of the state that are constantly outvoted in statewide elections by the Seattle area.
“A lot of voters today feel disenfranchised and feel like their vote doesn’t count,” said Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, the prime sponsor of the bill. Rep. Cary Condotta, R-East Wenatchee, a cosponsor, said the proposal was about “trying to balance the interests of state that is very diverse, politically.”

The bill is unlikely to go anywhere in Olympia given Democratic Party control of the state House and governor’s office. But similar proposals are being pushed by Republicans in many states, including battlegrounds like Ohio and Virginia, as part of a national GOP strategy to gain a potential advantage in future elections. Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, currently apportion their electoral votes by congressional district.

Democrats have cried foul, accusing Republicans of trying to rig a game they can’t win under the current rules. Washington State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz pointed to an analysis showing Romney, despite losing the national popular vote, would have defeated Obama if the apportionment by congressional district had been in place nationwide in 2012.
“The Republican Party has a choice. Are they going to listen to the changing demographics of America and pay more attention to people of color or women? Or are they just going to steal the election?” Pelz said.

-snip-

Read more: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/01/29/gop-lawmakers-propose-new-rules-to-allocate-electoral-college-votes/

28 replies, 3115 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 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply GOP lawmakers propose new rules to allocate Electoral College votes (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
clarice Jan 2013 #1
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #2
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #4
clarice Jan 2013 #6
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #9
clarice Jan 2013 #10
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #11
CreekDog Jan 2013 #12
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #16
CreekDog Jan 2013 #17
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #18
CreekDog Jan 2013 #19
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #28
PSPS Jan 2013 #20
John2 Jan 2013 #21
Selatius Jan 2013 #24
McCamy Taylor Jan 2013 #14
yardwork Jan 2013 #3
BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #5
Andy823 Jan 2013 #7
timdog44 Jan 2013 #8
socialist_n_TN Jan 2013 #22
cyclezealot Jan 2013 #13
jinx1 Jan 2013 #15
Clouseau2 Jan 2013 #23
Coyotl Jan 2013 #25
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #26
freshwest Jan 2013 #27

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:07 PM

1. Time to get rid of the electoral college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clarice (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:10 PM

2. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clarice (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:12 PM

4. +13 .............. I have been saying that for years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:20 PM

6. 1 man. 1 vote. Otherwise, too much room for fraud. IMO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clarice (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:41 PM

9. No way. Bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:47 PM

10. Curious, why do you think it's a bad idea? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clarice (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:49 PM

11. Much more potential for fraud and much more difficult to track down fraud,

for starters. Imagine the mess in Florida in 2000, but on a national scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:07 PM

12. one person one vote is the most democratic way

if you like un democratic voting, you support the electoral college, which even the founders had serious issues with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:58 PM

16. The Electoral College is a much better representation of the country as a whole

Allowing a few cities and large states to choose the president every four years in wholly undemocratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:01 PM

17. hey if you don't want the country or the vote to represent people, you got it

do plants, counties, trees, dingbats, whatever.

but democracies, the thing to represent is a person, one person and another, equally.

and your system doesn't.

you may think it's the most wonderful system ever, but you're wrong that it's democratic, it's anti-democratic.

and by the way, it overrepresents white voters compared to minority votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:06 PM

18. If you want the president to be chosen by a few concentrated population areas,

go with a national popular vote.

The Electoral College does represent people. It allows people from every part of the country - particularly those who live in smaller states, or outside of the country's major cities - to have their voice heard.

Your system does not represent everyone equally. I don't think the EC is "the most wonderful system ever"; no system is perfect. But yours is much less representative than the EC is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:09 PM

19. again, people are the basis for democracy

stop calling yourself a proponent of democracy, you are a proponent of a system that gives white people more power than nonwhites, per person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:15 PM

28. I was under the impression that there are in fact, many types of representative democracies...

"but democracies, the thing to represent is a person, one person and another, equally..."

I was under the impression that there are in fact, many types of representative democracies, running the gamut from majority rule, to proportional representation to plurality voting to direct representation to weighted voting; each one with its own particular and unique strengths and weaknesses.

Is there an objective and peer-reviewed analysis which concludes that if I prefer one over the other then I am indeed, "anti-democratic" and do not wish to see representation...? Or (and I find this a wee bit more likely) is that merely a melodramatic opinion premised on two logical fallacies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:49 PM

20. Actually, it's the worst possible representation

With the electoral college, some people's votes count more than others. It's bad enough that one has to be approved by a small group of mostly rural states to even get nominated. If this happens to increase the influence of "large population centers," that's fine. That's where most of the people are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:19 PM

21. That is a lotta Bull!

 

The majority of the people in this country select the President. Your premise that a minority of the people represent even red states is false. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Hiwaii, Vermont and Maine are not large states. Iowa is not a large state.

Most of those Red States are in the South and the MidWest. Most of the votes going to the Republican Party comes from virtually one demographic which is far more Right and hostile to the other diverse Demographics of this country. Most voter suppression attempts come in those states also. Even though Mitt Romney won North Carolina, over 90 percent of his votes came virtually from white Southerners. Even though President Obama won most urban areas, he also won some rural areas where you had Diversity. And regardless of whether a state is rural or small, the Democrats problem seem mostly to apply to one particular region and demographic. The biggest threat to the Republican Party seems to be the changing Demographics and more diversity of the country through population growth. It has more to do with holding onto power and the status quo than ideas. The more status those groups get in voting numbers, the more share in resources of this country they will demand. Republicans are scared to death of true equality. You had an African American President, but the Democratic Party is likely to produce the first woman and maybe Hispanic to the Presidency. The highest office in this country no longer just belongs to a white male. Nobody is saying it, but I am. And Rubio to me is a stooge. You don't have to kiss Rush Limbaugh's behind for acceptance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:12 PM

24. I generally oppose the EC because it locks in the two party monopoly.

In a democratic republic, there should be more than just two vehicles to express the varied opinions of a diverse nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clarice (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:04 PM

14. Only if they do it everwhere---not just in Democratic states.

When they start dividing up the vote in Texas, they can start doing it in Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:10 PM

3. NO! Republicans are gerrymandering congressional districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:16 PM

5. If the GOP is really concerned and want to balance the interests of a politically diverse

electorate, do away with the electoral college. Period.

These corporate shills NOT interested in helping the disenfranchised voter. They're interested in totalitarianism headed and funded by Corporate America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:29 PM

7. +100,000,000,000...

That's exactly right. Republicans don't want to actually let the "people" elect the president, they want to cheat every way they can find in order to put the advantage in the republican nominee's favor, and that's just plain BS!

If they want every voter to feel their vote counts, then let the popular vote elect presidents, not the EC, especially when republicans are doing all the can to "RIG" the election in their favor.

Let the "REAL" people decide, not corporations with all their money!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:39 PM

8. Electoral College

If you look back in the records at the popular vote, and I am talking about the presidency, the popular vote was correct in almost all recent elections except --ta da-- when GW won his first election. He did not get the majority of popular votes. And there were a couple other incidents of that happening, but I defy anyone to admitting that they are that old. And they were republicans who pulled off those sorry excuses for a democratic election. So eliminate the Electoral College and vote in people strictly on popular vote. The Electoral College is just another institution that the Cock brothers can purchase. That would be a start. Then the district gerrymandering could be tackled as time goes along. But it all needs to start somewhere. The repugs would be crying in their beer the same as if we were to put a flat tax in place, somewhere above the 15% line. Along that line I saw someone say if 1% has 99% of the money, they should pay 99% of the taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:37 PM

22. I don't know if that was me or not, BUT.....

I have been saying that exact thing for a while now. Tax the 1% at a 99% rate. Oh yeah and tax wealth too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:09 PM

13. Any Goober Legislator in Red States

Such as North Carolina, Texas, or Georgia proposed such a law to allow their state's Democratic voters to be represented in the Electoral College . Don't be silly , of course not.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:53 PM

15. Time for electronic elections

With today's advanced technology, one would think that we could use the popular vote and have an id similar to our voter id and vote online. For the next Presidential election we have nearly 4 years to work on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jinx1 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:01 PM

23. Not time at all

There is currently no way I know of to securely have private voting over the internet.

Search on youtube for BUSTING the 'Man-in-the-Middle' of Ohio Vote Rigging and Stephen Spoonamore who explains in death why electronic voting systems (never mind online voting) is too easily hacked and manipulated.

What we need to do is what other sane modern nations do:

1) chuck out all the electronic voting machines
2) vote with paper and PEN or PENCIL.
3) have the votes counted by poll workers or bank tellers while party representatives observe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jinx1 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:27 PM

25. Never happen because it can't be secure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:36 PM

26. So, the GOP is revisiting the idea of "Rotten Boroughs"

Something to British abolished in 1832.

The most notorious was the constituency of Dunwich, which sent two MP's to the British parliament despite having been reclaimed by the sea and only having forty odd households remaining in its boundaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:35 AM

27. WA just elected a repuke SoS. Don't think there won't be more outrageous stunts than this for 2014.

We had some stuff in 2012 - wow!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread