GOP Electoral College Power Play

[colourwheel]

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.

 

 

Just remember the U.S.A. is not a true republic either...

 

Going back to the last election... even if legislation is legal to change the electoral college to be split in one state... in a very blue state... it will be over turned by the supreme court just like the voter ID laws.... even though this story is now just surfacing in the media slowly eventually the courts will over turn this legislation just like they did the ID laws because it's undemocratic and leans towards a partisan political agenda to elect national officials. Unless you have a purely right-wing Supreme court justice, it's just not going to happen....

 

edit:

 

Do you really want to live in a country like the U.S.S.R. was? because this is exactly what the republican party is "trying" to do just to get their party into national office again.

 

The Soviet Union was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.

Edited January 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

More than a couple states already split their votes in the electoral college in some fashion. It's perfectly legal. The supreme court would have no grounds to overturn the decisions. And if you read the 'rules' for said electors, there is no law FORCING them to vote the way their constituents told them to..... Nice huh? Personally, I think the EC just needs to go away. Candidates have won the popular vote, only to lose the electoral college.....

 

The republicans pulling a stunt that will give them an advantage in the next elections really doesn't surprise me at all. What boggles my mind is, if michigan is such a dem leaning state, why do we have a republican governor, and state house? (I live in michigan...)

[sukeban]

More than a couple states already split their votes in the electoral college in some fashion. It's perfectly legal. The supreme court would have no grounds to overturn the decisions. And if you read the 'rules' for said electors, there is no law FORCING them to vote the way their constituents told them to..... Nice huh? Personally, I think the EC just needs to go away. Candidates have won the popular vote, only to lose the electoral college.....

 

The republicans pulling a stunt that will give them an advantage in the next elections really doesn't surprise me at all. What boggles my mind is, if michigan is such a dem leaning state, why do we have a republican governor, and state house? (I live in michigan...)

 

Because to a whole lot of people, the Tea Party sounded pretty good back in 2010. Obama had just passed his healthcare legislation without a single Republican vote, and the GOP was busy ginning up talk about Death Panels, Birth Certificates, and the budget apocalypse. Whatever the Tea Party might or might not have authentically been, it should be clear to all that it's simply the electoral manifestation of the most right-wing elements in our nation, trying to turn the clock back not to 1776 but to an imaginary version of 1980 (I'm no fan of Reagan, but he was a moderate compromiser compared with the Tea Party bloc) where Republicans ran government and never backed down from their "principles."

 

Anyway, due to that one-off Tea Party wave, all of these Republicans were elected to nominally blue states. Same sort of thing happened in 2006 and 2008 with Democrats being elected in blood-red states, simply because many folks were equally fed up with the excesses of Bush. The difference is that a) Democrats are slightly less devious than Republicans (or don't have to be because they know their popularity is greater than the Republicans) and b) 2010 was the "huge enchilada" of Redistricting. 2010 was the single WORST time to massively lose an election that Democrats could ever pick, since its repercussions will be felt far longer than one session of Congress. It should be a cautionary tale to the Democratic electorate that loves to "check out" when there isn't a Presidential candidate to be picked.

 

Anyway, the Republicans currently sitting in blue states are a total fluke, an artifact of a very unique election in 2010. These folks have an extremely short shelf-life (since they've greatly antagonized the majority coalitions of their states) and are trying to change the rules of the game before the next large sequence of Gubernatorial elections beginning in 2014 that will inevitably see all of these clowns swept aside. State Legislative races are less competitive because Republicans were able to gerrymander those districts, too! But you can't gerrymander the borders of a state, leaving these Tea Party governors with huge bulls eyes on them for every Democratic strategist in the nation.

[colourwheel]

Speaking of constituents...

 

A survey of Pennsylvania voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.

By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

 

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

 

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

 

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

 

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

 

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

 

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

 

 

Looking at the changing demographics of our country, If the GOP keeps trying to find ways to tilt national elections in their favor a national bill would be pushed and easily passed to get rid of the electoral college altogether. The GOP does not want this to happen because a national popular vote would make their party a minority almost in definite.

 

Fortunately, it’s unlikely that Republicans will actually go ahead with their Electoral College rigging plan, because the incentives for state legislators who would have to vote for the plan most likely run counter to those of the national party. Even the suggestion of such Electoral College-tampering, however, further undermines the “norm of following norms” that helps keep a democracy polity stable. And unfortunately, no solution appears to be available.

Edited January 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[ElvenHeroine]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Republican Party is doomed.

 

Traditionally parties act like businesses seeking to acquire as much voters as possible. Since there is a historical tendency for there to be as many Liberals and Conservatives, it usually a contest for down the middle, a moderate or more correctly, centrist position to win the Presidential Election as well as most Congressional Districts. This isn't entirely true with all Congressional Districts. However, this is quite burdensome for idealistic people who want to say control the Republican Party. Pragmatists like Mitt Romney are usually the typical Republican and the typical Politician. They aim for down the middle and can easily switch positions.

 

But what happens when you start having eccentric rich people controlling the Republican Party or people who idealize Ron Paul? They start doing things to alter the electorate in such a way that it swings in their favor. I mean how would Conservatives or Libertarians as they call themselves, swing the electorate to their favor? Well they can say pointless crap like Two or Three Dimensions, which is pointless, because if people fall down the middle between Liberal and Conservative, then they also fall down the middle between Libertarianism or Anarchism and Statism, something called Republicanism.

 

Anyhow, what they actually do if they pragmatically want to think of a realistic means to achieve their goal is by disfranchising the electorate. They can do this by a wide variety of things. But the usual thing they do is create strict voter-registration laws which disfavor the poor, uneducated, and ethnically diverse, while favoring the rich, well-educated, and ethnically white. By doing this, they can change the map of the electorate to go from Far-Far Right to the Mid-Left rather than the Far-Far Left, thus swinging the middle line between the two extreme into the right.

 

Between Bush 41 and Bush 43 and during the term of Bush 43, they were doing just this thing. This was simply due to a great disdain against Clinton due to the loss of Bush 41.

 

I believe it is critically suggested that the power granted to the Republicans by Reagan kind of went to their head as they were able to finally swing away from the far left policy decisions of Carter, which had came due to a previous disfranchisement caused by Nixon that made the electorate heavily dislike Conservative politicians, even though Nixon was a pragmatist (noted by establishing the EPA).

 

The problem stands on the fact that the Far Left are getting smarter and realizing a means to achieve their goals without causing the same harm they did to themselves when loss Gore vs Bush in 2000, which is by concentrating the Democratic Party as Far Center or Pass Center as they possibly can. The result of this venture is to prevent power being given to pragmatist Republicans who fall out of line to Idealists. Thereby, pragmatist Republicans like Romney have to stay in line with the Far-Far Right ideas of Gingrich. The result of that and the rationale thinking behind such is that a Centrist Democratic Party will handle much of the Left while taking up the Center-Right that dislike the Far-Right. Even though the Far-Far Left and Simple Left get disfranchised by Republican policies simply to keep the electorate in their favor, the changes in the demography will press the Center and Center-Right to become increasing Hispanic. The result of this ethnic change will present a contest against the Far-Far Right, who dislike Hispanics or present policies that harm them.

 

George W. Bush may be a complete moron who speaks English in the worse manner possible for an American, but he was intelligent enough to understand the importance of the Hispanic Vote. The same cannot be said to be true for Gingrich or the Republican Establishment, especially since they aim to move as far away from George W. Bush as possible. This is another strategic advantage for the Left. Since George W. Bush had won the 2000 election, by having him become unpopular (which was due to his own misfortunes and the Left Establishment, simply working along just to see him fry his own behind) and thus having his only Left-Center position out of the all the Far-Far Right positions he has become unpopular in correspondence of his own terms in office. Thus, the as the Far-Far Right disown him in order to win the proceeding elections (McCain and Romney), they also disown the only electoral strategy that could maintain their position of power. This is true as stated before with how important Hispanics will be as their population continues to grow. And with the Republicans disliking Hispanics, Hispanics will turn to the Centrist Democratic Party.

 

Thereby, Republicans will eventually become such a small minority that there is no way they can win the Presidential election (noted now the reality after Romney, while fostering to become true with McCain) and eventually they will cease to exist as infighting will eventually occur and the Pragmatists and Idealists will kill each other, literally. Worse case of American Terrorism of Republican murdering Republicans you will ever see. And this will happen because, the pragmatists just won't agree with the idealists being in control, when they are handicapping the success and survival of the party. Although I believe it is the idealists who will initiate this chain of violence that cause a minor Civil War in the United States between Republicans that will lead to their virtual extinction.

 

Then they disappear, the Democrats will have full power and it will simply be a contest between the Far-Far Left and the Center Foundation that the Far-Far Left has supported this entire time. And that will become the future of the United States as a bilingual Spanish and English Social-Democratic Federation.

[colourwheel]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Republican Party is doomed.

 

Traditionally parties act like businesses seeking to acquire as much voters as possible. Since there is a historical tendency for there to be as many Liberals and Conservatives, it usually a contest for down the middle, a moderate or more correctly, centrist position to win the Presidential Election as well as most Congressional Districts. This isn't entirely true with all Congressional Districts. However, this is quite burdensome for idealistic people who want to say control the Republican Party. Pragmatists like Mitt Romney are usually the typical Republican and the typical Politician. They aim for down the middle and can easily switch positions.

 

But what happens when you start having eccentric rich people controlling the Republican Party or people who idealize Ron Paul? They start doing things to alter the electorate in such a way that it swings in their favor. I mean how would Conservatives or Libertarians as they call themselves, swing the electorate to their favor? Well they can say pointless crap like Two or Three Dimensions, which is pointless, because if people fall down the middle between Liberal and Conservative, then they also fall down the middle between Libertarianism or Anarchism and Statism, something called Republicanism.

 

Anyhow, what they actually do if they pragmatically want to think of a realistic means to achieve their goal is by disfranchising the electorate. They can do this by a wide variety of things. But the usual thing they do is create strict voter-registration laws which disfavor the poor, uneducated, and ethnically diverse, while favoring the rich, well-educated, and ethnically white. By doing this, they can change the map of the electorate to go from Far-Far Right to the Mid-Left rather than the Far-Far Left, thus swinging the middle line between the two extreme into the right.

 

Between Bush 41 and Bush 43 and during the term of Bush 43, they were doing just this thing. This was simply due to a great disdain against Clinton due to the loss of Bush 41.

 

I believe it is critically suggested that the power granted to the Republicans by Reagan kind of went to their head as they were able to finally swing away from the far left policy decisions of Carter, which had came due to a previous disfranchisement caused by Nixon that made the electorate heavily dislike Conservative politicians, even though Nixon was a pragmatist (noted by establishing the EPA).

 

The problem stands on the fact that the Far Left are getting smarter and realizing a means to achieve their goals without causing the same harm they did to themselves when loss Gore vs Bush in 2000, which is by concentrating the Democratic Party as Far Center or Pass Center as they possibly can. The result of this venture is to prevent power being given to pragmatist Republicans who fall out of line to Idealists. Thereby, pragmatist Republicans like Romney have to stay in line with the Far-Far Right ideas of Gingrich. The result of that and the rationale thinking behind such is that a Centrist Democratic Party will handle much of the Left while taking up the Center-Right that dislike the Far-Right. Even though the Far-Far Left and Simple Left get disfranchised by Republican policies simply to keep the electorate in their favor, the changes in the demography will press the Center and Center-Right to become increasing Hispanic. The result of this ethnic change will present a contest against the Far-Far Right, who dislike Hispanics or present policies that harm them.

 

George W. Bush may be a complete moron who speaks English in the worse manner possible for an American, but he was intelligent enough to understand the importance of the Hispanic Vote. The same cannot be said to be true for Gingrich or the Republican Establishment, especially since they aim to move as far away from George W. Bush as possible. This is another strategic advantage for the Left. Since George W. Bush had won the 2000 election, by having him become unpopular (which was due to his own misfortunes and the Left Establishment, simply working along just to see him fry his own behind) and thus having his only Left-Center position out of the all the Far-Far Right positions he has become unpopular in correspondence of his own terms in office. Thus, the as the Far-Far Right disown him in order to win the proceeding elections (McCain and Romney), they also disown the only electoral strategy that could maintain their position of power. This is true as stated before with how important Hispanics will be as their population continues to grow. And with the Republicans disliking Hispanics, Hispanics will turn to the Centrist Democratic Party.

 

Thereby, Republicans will eventually become such a small minority that there is no way they can win the Presidential election (noted now the reality after Romney, while fostering to become true with McCain) and eventually they will cease to exist as infighting will eventually occur and the Pragmatists and Idealists will kill each other, literally. Worse case of American Terrorism of Republican murdering Republicans you will ever see. And this will happen because, the pragmatists just won't agree with the idealists being in control, when they are handicapping the success and survival of the party. Although I believe it is the idealists who will initiate this chain of violence that cause a minor Civil War in the United States between Republicans that will lead to their virtual extinction.

 

Then they disappear, the Democrats will have full power and it will simply be a contest between the Far-Far Left and the Center Foundation that the Far-Far Left has supported this entire time. And that will become the future of the United States as a bilingual Spanish and English Social-Democratic Federation.

 

Don't forget the asian american population too, as well other other fast growning ethnic groups in america.

 

Asian americans are finally a sold demographic for election cycles. :thumbsup:

Edited January 17, 2013 by colourwheel

[sukeban]

@Elven

 

I agree to an extent with what you say, but really the misfortunes of the Right are entirely of their own making. I would like to say that Pelosi and/or Reid are intelligent enough to engineer such a public relations disaster (for the Republicans), but... I won't give them that much credit. Democrats had 2008 as a slam-dunk due to the absolute disaster that was the second term of Bush. They probably could have put up a beagle for their presidential candidate, but instead they went for the maximum humiliation and put up a skilled politician in Obama. McCain never really stood a chance following on after Bush, facing a beagle or Mr. Obama.

 

2012, however, was an EMINENTLY winnable election for Republicans and... they blew it, hard. As you say, the far-right of the Republican party (the Tea Party) calls the shots now, making sure that only the most fringe, far-right candidates have any chance of surviving their self-destructive primary process. They had Jon Huntsman--an honorable and talented dude by any estimation--but he never stood a chance given the virulently right-wing bent of the Republican primary base. Instead, they gave the front-runner status to clowns like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, before finally giving their collective "Oh well" and accepting Romney. But by that time, Romney had had to kowtow to the far right-wing in order to merely stay in the game, and his positions were toxic to the general electorate. I still remember that debate question: "How many of you would accept 10:1 spending cuts to tax revenues" and NOBODY raised their hand (not even Huntsman). That was a moment of sheer insanity that the general electorate never forgot.

 

But yes, the Republicans are doomed if they think that ginning up fear in ethnic whites is going to somehow start winning them elections again. We're at the point where the white vote--and the fear of the ethnic "other"--simply isn't enough to put you over the top anymore, thus under-cutting the "classic" Republican strategy that dominated from the era of Nixon to the era of Bush II. Now, parties actually have to appeal to other ethnicities to gain higher office, and to different religions and genders, too. 2012 will forever be written about as the end of the WASP deathgrip over American politics, the election where that coalition captured by Obama in 2008 showed up again and proved that it wasn't just a one-off fluke.

 

But some segments of the far-right are crazy as hell and probably will fire some shots before this thing is all said and done. I wouldn't really be surprised if the next twenty years or so featured terrorism and potentially some small-scale militia revolts--all on the part of FAR right-wing groups trying for one last, paramilitary grasp at the political apple. The far right-wing of today is like the far left-wing of the 1960s and 1970s, in a way that members of the left (such as can be called in America) fundamentally are not. Left-wingers are not armed nor are they as angry (because their political star is in ascendance) as the far right-wingers of today are. Right-wingers have everything to lose (their 30-year dominance over politics) and no hope really on the horizon. And given the traditional affinity of right-wing groups and all things martial, if I were the director of the FBI, I would start listening to "chatter" amongst these groups starting today. Real talk, the greatest threat facing the USA today probably isn't from an Islamic fundamentalist at all, but is from a Timothy McVeigh-style "The Black UN Helicopters Are Coming for Us" (Alex Jones) type of crazy right-winger.

 

Again, liberals might get mad at Obama and Congress because they dilute otherwise progressive bills, but they are not at all on the same level of craziness as some of the far-right are, blasting over talk radio about "Firing the first shot" and "Starting another Lexington" due to Obama's modest proposed gun-control and mental health reforms. We dismiss claims such as those as mere "talk" at our own peril, as inevitably someone out there is taking this "talk" very, very seriously.

Edited January 17, 2013 by sukeban

[colourwheel]

@sukeban

 

The left wing doesn't sell fear and hate. The thing that makes the left wing so effective these days in winning is making their electorate very well informed rather than selling fear and hate and half truths and/or straight out lies...

 

The big problem about the right-wing is a big "bubble" blocking out anything other than reality. They cover their base around this "bubble" filling it up with only things they want to hear and in the process altering the reality of the world they actually live in. The only way this bubble can be broken is if the right wing actaully starts being a party that keeps their electorate just as well informed as the left-wing does without trying to sell fear and hate...

 

Right-wing media is to actually blame more for this than anything else...

Edited January 17, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

@sukeban

 

The left wing doesn't sell fear and hate. The thing that makes the left wing so effective these days in winning is making their electorate very well informed rather than selling fear and hate and half truths and/or straight out lies...

 

The big problem about the right-wing is a big "bubble" blocking out anything other than reality. They cover their base around this "bubble" filling it up with only things they want to hear and in the process altering the reality of the world they actually live in. The only way this bubble can be broken is if the right wing actaully starts being a party that keeps their electorate just as well informed as the left-wing does without trying to sell fear and hate...

 

Right-wing media is to actually blame more for this than anything else...

 

Yes they do. You can see it every day in the news as relates to gun control. They use the same political tools as the repubbies, just from a slightly different angle. Neither party wants an informed electorate, if the average Joe had the slightest idea how much of our government was conducted off the record/behind the scenes by a few power-players (Lobbys...) there would be a demand for change, that could not be ignored. Why do you think our education ratings have been slipping? Stupid, uniformed, uneducated people are far easier to rule.

[colourwheel]

@HeyYou

 

I am not saying all republicans are bad or evil people but the right-wing media is driving thier base into a complete fringe party driven by fear and hate. The GOP has shifted so far to the right it has already started to alienate moderate conservatives and fiscal conservatives from their party base.

 

You ask why education ratings have been slipping but over look which party is trying to defund education and other programs and undermine public education in general. Uniformed, uneducated people are far easier to rule, yet it's hardly to be justified saying both parties promote this type of thing or hold equal blame. Republican officials in office are already talking about wanting to impeach obama because he used some of his political capital on executive orders yesterday.

 

Its kinda laughable to even hear talk about a president using executive orders as if he is trying to be some kind of dictator when historically almost every other modern presidents before him have used executive orders almost 20 times more than him.

 

It's very hard to find any left-wing media these days that sells hate and fear as well as misinformation, but when you look at right-wing media fear and hate and misinformation is almost all you will ever hear or see...

Edited January 17, 2013 by colourwheel