|
Alan Abramowitz posted:As the electorate continues to become less white and more liberal in its outlook on social issues, Republicans have two choices about how to improve their party’s prospects in future presidential elections. One approach would be to adopt more moderate positions on issues such as immigration, abortion, gay rights and health care in order to make their party more appealing to young people, women and nonwhites. But that strategy would risk alienating a large portion of the GOP’s current base, especially those aligned with the Tea Party movement. So rather than adopting that risky strategy, some Republican leaders appear to be opting for a different approach — changing the electoral rules to make it easier for a Republican candidate to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Business Insider Link I'd encourage you to read the rest of what Abramowitz's article had to say about it. Gerrymandering has been an extremely successful tactic for the GOP as far as congressional districts go. Democratic candidates got over a million more votes than Republicans in 2012, but Republicans maintained a 33 seat majority. This trend isn't likely to change until at least 2020 without absolute blowouts for Democratic candidates. Even in 2020, rural areas that lean hard red could keep their advantage if the GOP maintains control. There's been a ton of speculation about how the GOP would react to the loss in the Presidential Election, and most of those options seemed to rely on them alienating the base in order to get more traction with minorities. If they could gerrymander the Presidential Election along the same lines they do the house elections, it's completely possible that they wouldn't have to entertain any of these options, which would solve their problem for them. While this is unlikely to become a movement that sweeps through the majority of the country by 2016, battleground states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio could see the popular vote go to the Democratic candidate while the majority of delegates go to the Republican, assuming something like this were to pass. That would obviously have huge implications in a close election. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if the Democrats have a majority in the house in 2020, and they are able to redistrict states to their advantage, the GOP would likely be in the same position. It really is just obscenely undemocratic. "A healthy, optimistic party is Reaganesque, convinced that it can win the future by embracing it, and by making a positive case for its philosophy and candidates to all Americans. A party in decline is Nixonian and fears the future; it sees enemies everywhere, feels overwhelmed by electoral trends, and thinks it can win only by cheating, by subverting the system and stacking the deck in its favor." Is this what the GOP is heading for? Or is this just a pipe dream that delays the inevitable reforms? Volkerball fucked around with this message at Jan 25, 2013 around 23:27 |
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 08:22 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 16:10 |
|
|
I don't get it. If they split the EC in red states, they will lose red electors. Imagine Texas going from a guaranteed red win to mostly red, but with the occasional blue vote. They would have to split the blue states to get an advantage, but the Republicans can't do that obviously since they don't own those states.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 13:19 |
|
|
The point is to do it for states that voted Obama but are controlled at the state level by Republicans, like Virginia. This would be enough to tip it to a Republican presidential victory.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 13:28 |
|
|
peak debt posted:I don't get it. If they split the EC in red states, they will lose red electors. Imagine Texas going from a guaranteed red win to mostly red, but with the occasional blue vote. They would have to split the blue states to get an advantage, but the Republicans can't do that obviously since they don't own those states. Well so far they've just been proposing this in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. What common trait do all of those states share from 2012? Hmmmmm. Also too, if this scheme were applied nationally, Romney would have won in 2012 with 276 electoral votes.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 14:25 |
|
|
peak debt posted:I don't get it. If they split the EC in red states, they will lose red electors. Imagine Texas going from a guaranteed red win to mostly red, but with the occasional blue vote. They would have to split the blue states to get an advantage, but the Republicans can't do that obviously since they don't own those states. But they do. Ohio, which went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, has 16 house districts. Only 4 went to Democrats this year. So instead of getting 18 electoral college votes in 2012, Obama would have ended up with 6 and Romney with 12. All of the states the GOP is proposing this in went blue for the President in 2012; there's no way in hell the Texas GOP, for example, is going to propose this as it will cost them votes.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 14:34 |
|
|
peak debt posted:I don't get it. If they split the EC in red states, they will lose red electors. Imagine Texas going from a guaranteed red win to mostly red, but with the occasional blue vote. They would have to split the blue states to get an advantage, but the Republicans can't do that obviously since they don't own those states. They would never propose this in a red state. Purple and Blue (but GOP state controlled) states only. Whoever said the GOP was doomed to demographics in the other threads was shortsighted. They'll go down fighting even if it means pulling out every dirty trick in the book.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 14:38 |
|
|
There should be a "Republicans loving with elections" mega thread. This battle is in it's infancy because it's the only way they can respond to the demographic shifts.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 14:38 |
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:The point is to do it for states that voted Obama but are controlled at the state level by Republicans, like Virginia. This would be enough to tip it to a Republican presidential victory. This assumes that people who vote Republican at the state/Congressional level would necessarily go for Romney.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 14:39 |
|
|
I feel like this is kind of a gamble for republicans. If it proves popular and picks up support, it might lead to demands for a popular vote presidential election. Which brings them back to their current demographic problem. I hope that if they do pull this off in a states it will snowball out of their control and lead to a popular vote.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 14:59 |
|
|
So what happens if they do this and a democrat wins the popular vote by a wide margin (say 5-6 %) while losing the electoral college? For a long time I've been wondering what would have to happen to make me seriously consider protesting. This would do it.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 15:07 |
|
|
This is traditional. The losing party in a close presidential election always has a plan to fix the broken electoral college. How do they know it's broken? Because they lost. If Romney had won in 2012 it would be the Democrats calling for reform of the electoral college.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 15:10 |
|
|
wargamerROB posted:I feel like this is kind of a gamble for republicans. If it proves popular and picks up support, it might lead to demands for a popular vote presidential election. Which brings them back to their current demographic problem. I hope that if they do pull this off in a states it will snowball out of their control and lead to a popular vote.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 15:21 |
|
|
joat mon posted:This is traditional. The losing party in a close presidential election always has a plan to fix the broken electoral college. How do they know it's broken? Because they lost. If Romney had won in 2012 it would be the Democrats calling for reform of the electoral college. The fact that the democrats didn't push anything after what happened in 2000 makes this false equivalence pretty silly especially when viewed in context of the voter suppression that has been going on all over the country, all pushed by republicans.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 15:34 |
|
|
I swear to god, if they steal back Virginia I'm going to absolutely lose it. http://www.the-richmonder.com/2013/...atement-on.html The Richmonder posted:RICHMOND, VA — Senator Henry L. Marsh (D-Richmond) made the following statement in response to the Senate Republicans' forcing through a partisan redistricting plan.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 15:50 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:The fact that the democrats didn't push anything after what happened in 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_...ounts_Amendment
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 16:03 |
|
|
I'm not sure if they'll actually get EC changes through in a swing state, mostly because of the enormous backfire potential. Not giving so many votes to Obama sounds great to them now, but it'll have the exact opposite effect if the next presidential election swings in their favor and a bit short of half of their electoral votes go to a Democrat. They'd effectively be doubling down on a huge gamble, and they'll have to explain why they're lessening their state's influence either way.
OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at Jan 25, 2013 around 16:07 |
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 16:05 |
|
|
Yeah you pretty much made my point for me. That was small bore and completely ineffective.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 16:19 |
|
|
So, since the widespread high-level GOP-led voter suppression and fraud efforts of 2012 failed spectacularly in all the key states they utilized it in, its come to this?
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 16:31 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah you pretty much made my point for me. That was small bore and completely ineffective. Much like this is probably going to turn out to be. 
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 16:33 |
|
|
say no to bats posted:So, since the widespread high-level GOP-led voter suppression and fraud efforts of 2012 failed spectacularly in all the key states they utilized it in, its come to this? How do you know if failed? You have no idea how many votes it cost democrats or how many down ballot races it decided. And it will have an even greater impact on 2014 due to the lower turnout.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 16:39 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:The fact that the democrats didn't push anything after what happened in 2000 makes this false equivalence pretty silly especially when viewed in context of the voter suppression that has been going on all over the country, all pushed by republicans. You mean the 2000 election where Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college? Or are you just saying that some state-level republican legilsators in some states with republicans in control of the state legislature been more organized in their efforts to "reform" the electoral college in a way that serves their political interests than the Dems in 2000? Or that anybody's plan to change the EC in their favor is irrelevant ("pretty silly") becasue the GOP will suppress voters anyway?
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:06 |
|
|
wargamerROB posted:I feel like this is kind of a gamble for republicans. If it proves popular and picks up support, it might lead to demands for a popular vote presidential election. Which brings them back to their current demographic problem. I hope that if they do pull this off in a states it will snowball out of their control and lead to a popular vote. I think if they stole an election by loving with the EC like this it might generate enough popular will to pass a whole bunch of election reforms not limited to just abolishing EC. Things like a national voter holiday, guaranteed access to absentee, mail-in, and/or early voting ballots, and half a dozen other changes that would make US elections freer and fairer that aren't possible without a constitutional amendment. You could even throw in voter ID requirements as long as it requires states to make them available easily and cheaply to everyone who wants one. Call me an accelerationist but losing one presidential election might be worth it if it led to something like that.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:17 |
|
|
joat mon posted:This is traditional. The losing party in a close presidential election always has a plan to fix the broken electoral college. How do they know it's broken? Because they lost. If Romney had won in 2012 it would be the Democrats calling for reform of the electoral college. This isn't even a claim of reform, it's just an open, brazen attempt to subvert democracy.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:22 |
|
|
joat mon posted:You mean the 2000 election where Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college? Or are you just saying that some state-level republican legilsators in some states with republicans in control of the state legislature been more organized in their efforts to "reform" the electoral college in a way that serves their political interests than the Dems in 2000? Or that anybody's plan to change the EC in their favor is irrelevant ("pretty silly") becasue the GOP will suppress voters anyway? Gore lost because the SCOUTS decided the election for us. Turns out that after all the votes were counted Bush actually lost Florida... about 6 months after that court case.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:23 |
|
|
Man, it's year 2012. If you represent a party that can't alter it's strategy to appear more to "non-whites" because it would erode your existing support, you should really take a long hard look at your life and see if you are entirely happy with it.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:28 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Man, it's year 2012. If you represent a party that can't alter it's strategy to appear more to "non-whites" because it would erode your existing support, you should really take a long hard look at your life and see if you are entirely happy with it. Isn't it 2013? Or has my calender broken again? Anyway, the system definetly needs changing, but how would this affect republican base states if it was passed in them? Not saying that it will of course, just interested.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:29 |
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:I think if they stole an election by loving with the EC like this it might generate enough popular will to pass a whole bunch of election reforms not limited to just abolishing EC. Things like a national voter holiday, guaranteed access to absentee, mail-in, and/or early voting ballots, and half a dozen other changes that would make US elections freer and fairer that aren't possible without a constitutional amendment. You could even throw in voter ID requirements as long as it requires states to make them available easily and cheaply to everyone who wants one. Thing is, the way things currently are with Gerrymandering, I'd be flabbergasted if Republicans won the presidency but not at least the House, and probably the senate. And a Republican Legislative body isn't amending jack poo poo along those lines
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:30 |
|
|
I can't wait for the machine to start rolling on this one to hear the excuse why we need this to protect elections (and only in certain states). Thankfully it seems at least some Republicans are willing to call this what it is. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...-electoral-vote Radish fucked around with this message at Jan 25, 2013 around 17:35 |
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:33 |
|
|
Radish posted:I can't wait for the machine to start rolling on this one to hear the excuse why we need this to protect elections (and only in certain states). There could also be downstate implications. Watch as democrats target their organizing efforts in a more granular manner the next go around in states that have this (if it ever comes to pass), picking off CDs that are susceptible and loving with formerly safe downstate races for some Republicans.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 17:39 |
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Gore lost because the SCOUTS decided the election for us. Turns out that after all the votes were counted Bush actually lost Florida... about 6 months after that court case. Actually, it's the other way around -- it affirmed Bush did win Florida under most recount scenarios. The ones that had Gore as the victor were under guidelines that neither side ever pushed for during the whole recount mess.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 18:22 |
|
|
Radish posted:I can't wait for the machine to start rolling on this one to hear the excuse why we need this to protect elections (and only in certain states).
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 18:47 |
|
|
 The Virginia EC bill is going to be killing in the Senate. Two GOP state senators oppose it. quote:RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A Republican-backed bill to convert Virginia's winner-take-all method of apportioning presidential electors to one that awards electors one-by-one by congressional districts is likely doomed for the year.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 18:49 |
|
|
Yeah, that might have been a tactical error, good timing but they needed their caucus in lock-step for something that big. We shall see if this is a bit of a wake up call to the Democrats that the GOP isn't going to play around. Granted, if you take another perspective, if a bunch of states do make the change and it is significant enough to decide an election (or even if it doesn't) it might imperil the legitimacy of America's already undemocratic electoral process.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 18:56 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:The fact that the democrats didn't push anything after what happened in 2000 makes this false equivalence pretty silly especially when viewed in context of the voter suppression that has been going on all over the country, all pushed by republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...erstate_Compact The NPVIC would drastically change the Presidential election, far more then the Republican's current plan.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 19:32 |
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Gore lost because the SCOUTS decided the election for us. Turns out that after all the votes were counted Bush actually lost Florida... about 6 months after that court case. Do you have a cite for that? 'Cause I would be really, really interested in reading that.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 20:05 |
|
|
There's actually a problem with this that Republicans, and particularly the Republicans in those states aren't thinking about. States like Florida and Virginia get a lot of attention because they're battleground states. You have to campaign there. Conversely, in my home state of Texas, we see virtually no political advertising for president because everyone knows the state is going to go red anyway. Why waste any money there? Even "landslide" elections aren't decided by huge majorities. 60% is about all you'll ever get. A state like Florida suddenly goes from being a contest over 29 electoral votes to approximately 7. If you win by 60%, you get 16 votes plus the two extra. If you lose with 40% of the vote, you get the 11 votes left over. More than likely, if no one bothers to campaign down there, it becomes a fight over the extra two votes that the overall winner gets. It effectively makes Florida an irrelevant state to campaign in. Do you really think Florida wants that? The Republicans are making a big mistake looking at last year's votes and trying to gerrymander based on that. Unfortunately for them, if they do so, it completely changes the game. All that money spent in those battleground states will just be spent elsewhere, on former red states that could be influenced to go blue.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 20:48 |
|
|
einTier makes a good point. The big battle ground states of Florida, Ohio, Virgina, etc got a metric shitload of money spent in them on ads, campaign stops and ALL of the media attention for months and months. The second they go to proportional, even with 2 votes for the winner, all of that stops. Imagine Ohio and Virgina are both neck and neck in 2016, 51/49 or 50/50 a few months from the election. If one of those states went proportional and the other didn't campaigns would have little to no reason to spend money in that state - tens and tens of millions MIGHT swing the proportional one enough for an extra EC, plus 2 for winning. Tens and tens of millions in the other state could be the difference between 13/18 or zero. There are powerful interests in each of these battleground states that have a vested interest in keeping them vital to deciding the national race and I can seem them applying a lot of pressure to Republicans to avoid doing that.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 21:05 |
|
|
einTier posted:The Republicans are making a big mistake looking at last year's votes and trying to gerrymander based on that. Unfortunately for them, if they do so, it completely changes the game. All that money spent in those battleground states will just be spent elsewhere, on former red states that could be influenced to go blue. It would certainly enliven elections, especially making Texas the Most Dangerous Political Game of 2016.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 21:06 |
|
|
Cheers for the article, I'm actually writing on Republican Gerrymandering for my current dissertation so articles like these are always helpful. Though every time I read one they make me want to expand my analysis from just Florida and Texas, which is annoying in itself. A question I am drawing up is whether the Gerrymandering issue is implicit to the Republican party, or an issue arising from the democratic structure of America, we do see Democrats gerrymandering in areas as well (Such as Illinois) it just doesn't seem to be on the scale or frequency of the Republicans for a variety of factors. I'd argue that rather than getting angry at each individual case of Gerrymandering, there should be a real attempt to change the federal and state democratic structure to limit it's effectiveness.
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 21:09 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 16:10 |
|
|
Virginia's Republican governor is against this.quote:A spokesman for Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell says the governor opposes the GOP legislation that would award the state's electoral votes in presidential elections by congressional district -- instead of the current winner-take-all system. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ege-change?lite
|
| # ? Jan 25, 2013 21:19 |
|
