Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)This is a Big, Big Deal-Josh Marshall Talking Points Memo [View all]
A week ago I noted a new Republican push to gerrymander the electoral college to make it almost impossible for Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 and 2020, even if they match or exceed Barack Obamas vote margin in 2012. Is something like that really possible? Yes, very possible.
To review, heres how it works. The US electoral college system is based on winner take all delegate allocation in all but two states. If you get just one more vote than the other candidate you get all the electoral votes. One way to change the system is go to proportional allocation. That would still give some advantage to the overall winner. But not much. The key to the Republican plan is to do this but only in Democratic leaning swing states not in any of the states where Republicans win. That means you take away all the advantage Dems win by winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and so forth.
But the Republican plan goes a step further. Rather than going by the overall vote in a state, theyd allocate by congressional district. And this is where it gets real good, or bad, depending on your point of view. Democrats are now increasingly concentrated in urban areas and Republicans did an extremely successful round of gerrymandering in 2010, enough to enable them to hold on to a substantial House majority even though they got fewer votes in House races than Democrats.
In other words, the new plan is to make the electoral college as wired for Republicans as the House currently is. But only in Dem leaning states. In Republican states just keep it winner take all. So Dems get no electoral votes at all.
This all sounds pretty crazy. But it gets even crazier when you see the actual numbers. Theyre already pushing a bill to do this in the Virginia legislature. Remember, Barack Obama won Virginia and got 13 electoral votes. But as Benjy Sarlin reported today in a series of posts, if the plan now being worked on would have been in place last November, Mitt Romney would have lost the state but still got 9 electoral votes to Obamas 4. Think of that, two-thirds of the electoral votes for losing the state. If the Virginia plan had been in place across the country, as Republicans are now planning to do, Mitt Romney would have been elected president even though he lost by more than 5 million votes.
Remember, plans to do this are already underway in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states in the Midwest.
This is happening.
To review, heres how it works. The US electoral college system is based on winner take all delegate allocation in all but two states. If you get just one more vote than the other candidate you get all the electoral votes. One way to change the system is go to proportional allocation. That would still give some advantage to the overall winner. But not much. The key to the Republican plan is to do this but only in Democratic leaning swing states not in any of the states where Republicans win. That means you take away all the advantage Dems win by winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and so forth.
But the Republican plan goes a step further. Rather than going by the overall vote in a state, theyd allocate by congressional district. And this is where it gets real good, or bad, depending on your point of view. Democrats are now increasingly concentrated in urban areas and Republicans did an extremely successful round of gerrymandering in 2010, enough to enable them to hold on to a substantial House majority even though they got fewer votes in House races than Democrats.
In other words, the new plan is to make the electoral college as wired for Republicans as the House currently is. But only in Dem leaning states. In Republican states just keep it winner take all. So Dems get no electoral votes at all.
This all sounds pretty crazy. But it gets even crazier when you see the actual numbers. Theyre already pushing a bill to do this in the Virginia legislature. Remember, Barack Obama won Virginia and got 13 electoral votes. But as Benjy Sarlin reported today in a series of posts, if the plan now being worked on would have been in place last November, Mitt Romney would have lost the state but still got 9 electoral votes to Obamas 4. Think of that, two-thirds of the electoral votes for losing the state. If the Virginia plan had been in place across the country, as Republicans are now planning to do, Mitt Romney would have been elected president even though he lost by more than 5 million votes.
Remember, plans to do this are already underway in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states in the Midwest.
This is happening.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/this_is_a_big_big_deal.php
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
69 replies, 11915 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (156)
ReplyReply to this post
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
IMO the "electoral college" is an anachronism and should be abolished in favor of the popular vote.
xtraxritical
Jan 2013
#41
Good for you! I just got a local Democratic org. flyer here in TX. I might actually get involved....
Honeycombe8
Jan 2013
#13
It is very exciting to think a change can be made. Esp since I live in TX and there's a chance
Honeycombe8
Jan 2013
#37
Well, it would be a different matter if ALL the states did it. But when ONLY swing states do it...
Honeycombe8
Jan 2013
#19
The key term here is "Community Organizing" Saul Alinsky and Mother Jones knew how that worked.
libdem4life
Jan 2013
#16
Yes, it does sound 3rd world dictatorial. Giving the unethical a "legal" veneer...
Beartracks
Jan 2013
#26
This confuses me. I have no understanding of how gerrymandering works. Know a good primer? n/t
PerpetuallyDazed
Jan 2013
#29
This is so important that i think President Obama needs to talk about it at
Hawaii Hiker
Jan 2013
#39
Gerrymandering can rig the Electoral College, thus a legal basis to overturn gerrymandered states!
Coyotl
Jan 2013
#64
Get rid of the electoral college. One person one vote. Count as in India. More people no problems
judesedit
Jan 2013
#47
there must be a plan to move huge numbers of progressives to these gerrymandered districts
riverbendviewgal
Jan 2013
#51
Apathy, yes. Those of us who took to the streets as Occupy exhorted our fellow citizens
Zorra
Jan 2013
#68