GOP Electoral College Power Play

[sukeban]

First of all, read this article in the National Review if you haven't already.

 

TLDR version is this:

 

State-level Republicans in Democratic states are seeking to circumvent the traditional Electoral College vote distribution (winner take all) by instead apportioning their states' electoral votes by Congressional District--districts that they were able to successfully gerrymander after 2010. These states are most of the competitive "battleground" states of 2008 and 2012--Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida--many of which are historically Democratic-voting, but which voted in Republican statehouses in the 2010 election. Due to this one-off election, Republicans are seeking to undermine the outcome of all future elections in these states, tilting the electoral playing field almost insurmountably in the favor of the Republicans.

 

Using Congressional Districts would have resulted in an Obama LOSS--27 to 19--in the reliably Democratic states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania--despite Obama's winning these states by rather large margins in the popular vote and winning their Electoral Votes 46-0 in November. Extrapolated to the rest of the country, this would be even crazier, with some estimates putting Obama's loss at 125 Electoral Votes in 2012 despite winning the popular vote by more than 5 million or 4%. This would, simply put, put an anti-democratic (small "d") lock on the presidency for Republicans, even as they continue to decline in national popularity.

 

IMO, such a move would spark a crisis in the legitimacy of our democracy, if one party could rig the rules to favor it in spite of losing the popular vote in election after election. That is something that Mubarak would have done--or Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. Democrats could have done this same thing after the elections in 2006 and 2008--and certainly could have done so in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s--but they chose not to (or, more likely, the thought didn't cross their mind) because they respected our electoral processes enough not to mess up our elections for inevitably short-lived and destructive political gain. No good can possibly come of this, and it is truly playing with matches at a time when our political system has been badly frayed. Definitely is telling that high-level Republicans would sacrifice our democracy for the sake of their party rather than develop a more compelling message to sell to voters. Hopefully more level-headed members of government will prevail upon them to desist.

 

What do you think? Have you heard of this? Do you favor it? Do you think it will happen? What would you think if it did?

Edited January 16, 2013 by sukeban

[Vindekarr]

I think that's a very depressing developement but one as an Australian I am very well used to. Our political system is even less functional than yours, with both parties spending their entire electroal periods preparing for the next ellection and fighting, sometimes with their own members, rather than running the country. Our last ellection was a hung parliment-both major parties were so dismal that neither had nearly enough votes to secure power.

[colourwheel]

I was watching msnbc tonight and saw this story surface and noticed it's only being pushed to rig the swing states as of now. If state legislation is able to do this it would totally change the electoral college system in our country. I think this type of thing would eventually be challenged by the supreme court and will then lead to federal legislation where the popular vote will completely dissolve the electoral college system in national elections. The GOP rigging the electoral college system would undermine democracy as we know it and would lead to the Republican party in control of the country indefinite...

 

I would think the GOP would have to realize trying to push this kind of thing would not last long and lead to only damage their parties reputation even more than it already is...

 

National elections should be based on the popular vote anyways.... And the GOP pushing to try to rig national election will only lead the country to get rid of the electoral college all together.... And without the electoral college system the GOP would never stand a chance ever again in national elections without their party changing their Rhetoric and appealing to a wider range of the nation other than just white males...

 

In the long term this would be political suicide for the entire GOP if they unintentionally push the nation to completely get rid of the electoral college for national elections trying to keep finding ways to rig it for their own party...

Edited January 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[juderodney]

If state legislation is able to do this...

 

Actually, they can.

 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

U.S. Constitution, Article 1

[colourwheel]

If state legislation is able to do this...

 

Actually, they can.

 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

U.S. Constitution, Article 1

 

If state legislation is challenged by the supreme court it can be just as easily over turned and will be, Just like voter ID laws were this past election.

 

Eventually if the GOP keeps pushing to try to rig the national elections so their party can win They won't be a major party for long.

Edited January 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[juderodney]

WHOOPS!!! Make that Article II Section 1 ><

 

And how would the Supreme Court overturn something as such, especially since in early presidential elections those state legislatures directly chose the electors themselves?

[colourwheel]

WHOOPS!!! Make that Article II Section 1 ><

 

And how would the Supreme Court overturn something as such, especially since in early presidential elections those state legislatures directly chose the electors themselves?

 

Because this type of legislation is obviously partisan in an undemocratic way to be tilted towards the favor of just one political party. No supreme court would accept legislation in favor of Oligarchy state of power to elect national officials. Especially to elect the president of an entire nation.

 

Honestly you think this type of legislation wouldn't be challenged? and when brought to the supreme court what kind of defence would they try to use to justify it's legitimacy? I honestly don't see this type of thing happening, and if the GOP pushes too much trying to find ways to rig national elections eventually the whole electoral college system will be completely dissolved. This would probably result in the Republican party being a minority party for decades... maybe even indefinite....

Edited January 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[juderodney]

Well then obviously Nebraska and Maine have been doing it illegally for decades! Yes, they have their electors by congressional district. It's perfectly legal, and in swing states, it can be just as easy for Democrats

 

Oh btw, contrary to popular opinion, the U. S. is a republic, not a democracy. That means there will be some things inherently undemocratic as a means to prevent a "tyranny of the majority".

 

One more thing: Sukeban, that article you linked to is in the National JOURNAL, not National Review.

[colourwheel]

Well then obviously Nebraska and Maine have been doing it illegally for decades! Yes, they have their electors by congressional district. It's perfectly legal, and in swing states, it can be just as easy for Democrats

 

Oh btw, contrary to popular opinion, the U. S. is a republic, not a democracy. That means there will be some things inherently undemocratic as a means to prevent a "tyranny of the majority".

 

One more thing: Sukeban, that article you linked to is in the National JOURNAL, not National Review.

 

Only time can tell, but I honestly don't think its going to happen... Also the U.S.A. is a republic... but it is also a democracy!

 

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

 

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

 

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.

 

And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefore, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.

 

let me ask you juderodney... why would you be in favor of a political party trying to rig national elections to election officals for your party? If my political party was trying this I would be outraged....

Edited January 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[juderodney]

Of course there are democratic elements in a republic. I never said there wasn't. And of course they're not opposites. Just remember, though, that a republic is also not a true democracy. The idea of "majority rule" is not all-powerful, here. I could go further in this, but it would take things off-topic.

 

Let's get back to that good ol' Electoral College stuff!!

 

So...

 

Would it be wise for the GOP to actually go through with this plan? Maybe not. Is it legal? Yes.