How Republicans Plan To Rig The Next Presidential Election

[Cigar]

Yesterday, Virginia Republicans took the first step to move a GOP plan to rig the Electoral College forward in that state. Similar plans are under consideration in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

The Republican election rigging plan targets blue states that President Obama won in 2008 and 2012, and changes the way they allocate electoral votes to give many of these votes away for free to the Republican candidate for president. Under the Republican Plan, most electoral votes will be allocated to the winner of individual Congressional districts, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. Because the Republican Plan would be implemented in states that are heavily gerrymandered to favor Republicans, the resulting maps would all but guarantee that the Republican would win a majority of each state’s electoral votes, even if the Democratic candidate wins the state as a whole.

Today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a white paper detailing how this Republican election-rigging plan works — including this rather striking visual demonstration of just how effectively Republicans gerrymandered six states that are likely targets of their plan:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-shot-2013-01-24-at-9.10.37-AM.png

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/24/1488491/how-the-republicans-plan-to-rig-the-next-presidential-race-in-six-pictures/

Why do the Republicans need to rig the election system? The picture below clearly indicates they will never win a popular Vote, therefore cheating is there only recourse. In addition, Republicans insult and berate Blacks, Hispanics, Women and Gays every chance they get. Now ... even the Elderly are in their cross-hairs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/DainBramaged/untitled_zpsab426edd.jpg

This may work once or possibly twice ... but once again, demographics are NOT on The GOP side.

Ever wonder how the Republicans would react if their candidate won the Popular Vote, but lost the Election?

[zelmo1234]

You are aware that this is not a new Idea, nor would they be the only states to do it!

And look at these states, there are in many cases on or 2 large urban areas that so not have the same values as the rest of the state that are deciding the direction for the entire state!

I suggest that you look into doing this in Texas, and the South, then it should off set teh problem!

But the better way in to iliminate the electoral collage now that our population has grown large eonougn that almost any state could swing the election

It was created so that canidates could not ignore the small state, but we are so polarized that they only play in 11 states and the rest are left behind.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/13017/why-do-nebraska-and-maine-split-electoral-votes

[Cigar]

Here's a simple question, if the Candidate YOU "personally" Vote for in YOUR State wins the Popular Vote; would YOU "personally" be upset if YOUR Candidate lose the election?

Yes or No ...

[zelmo1234]

keep believeing in that big crow! but it was smaller than the last one? here are a few more fun filled facts!

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/09/mccain-beats-romney

He received 9 million less votes in 2012, and conservaites satyed home because Romney as much as the press tried to paint him as a conservative is a morerate, and what we call a rino! This does not turn out the base!

http://centralillinoisproud.com/fulltext?nxd_id=301152

10 million less people watched this on national telivision and it was on a public sector holiday?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/going-out-guide/wp/2013/01/17/attention-procrastinators-unofficial-inaugural-ball-tickets-are-still-on-sale/

Until they lowered the prices to as low as $25.00 the balls would not have sold out,

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/big-partisan-divide-in-obama-job-approval/

tied with GWB that's something to be proud of?

You see he did get a much higher percentage of the minority vote, because he is a minority? And I say good for them I know that my VP voted for him and then told me he was sick to his stomach because he betrayed his values to vote for a person that looked like him.

He then said he hoped that the Republicans took the house and Senate so that Obama would have to address some of the issues he cared abuot, but he just could not help himself he enjoyued seeing a person that looked like him as President, and that he felt this would be the last time in his life that it would happen.

When I asked him why he thought that, his answer was that obama has messed things up so bad that they will never elect another black man? I hope that he is wrong, I hope that the next minority to take the office is the right man for the job. Insted of just a person of color

[zelmo1234]

Here's a simple question, if the Candidate YOU "personally" Vote for in YOUR State wins the Popular Vote; would YOU "personally" be upset if YOUR Candidate lose the election?

Yes or No ...

No

And here is why, dividing the electoral votes gives people a reason to vote in most of the states.

For example in CA, NY, IL if you are a Conservaitve, you have no reason to vote for the President, because your vote does not count, it is not going to change a thing.

In TX, and the rest of the south with the exception of FL and VA, if you are a democrat you might as well not cast a vote for the president, becasue your vote does not count.

In the Democratic Primaries your party has figured this out and you have less winner take all primaries, which is why hillary stayed in the race so long.

Does this make any sense to you? I guess what I am saying is if all states did it, then it would go back to being a fair vote and each person vote would carry more weight?

That is my point of view

It does hurt the vote early and vote often polices of the Democrats though!

[Cigar]

OK so you're not in favor of the popular Vote.

So what's the point in spending all this money trying to convince someone to Vote for a particular candidate?

[zelmo1234]

OK so you're not in favor of the popular Vote.

So what's the point in spending all this money trying to convince someone to Vote for a particular candidate?

No that would be my first choice, but if they can't, which they won't do that becasue it would take a constitutional amendment, and the party that is out of power will never favor that, no matter which on it is, then I think that dividing the electoral votes is better than what we have

But on man one vote would be the best in my opinion!

Sorry I whould have made that clear

[nic34]

But on man one vote would be the best in my opinion!



That's the popular vote...

(I hope that's what you meant...)

[Cigar]

No that would be my first choice, but if they can't, which they won't do that becasue it would take a constitutional amendment, and the party that is out of power will never favor that, no matter which on it is, then I think that dividing the electoral votes is better than what we have

But on man one vote would be the best in my opinion!

Sorry I whould have made that clear


Ok ... I can agree with that.

[Cigar]

Some Republican-controlled legislatures are moving ahead with plans to change the way their states apportion Electoral College delegates. It's not a particularly smart idea. If Virginia or Pennsylvania or some other state decides to change their system to create an advantage for the next Republican presidential candidate, that will obviously make it easier for that candidate to win the presidency. At least, it could, if the change sticks. The next election is four years away and the Democrats could retake control of those state legislatures and change the rules back to the way they have always been. The real problem, though, is that Barack Obama would still have won the presidency even if the Republicans had made these rules changes in all the states where they now have the technical power to do it.

It's true that Romney would have won the election if all 50 states awarded their delegates according to who won each congressional district, but that's not what the Republicans are trying to do. They are trying to change the rules in just a few blue states that voted for Obama but in which Romney carried more than half of the districts. That kind of change would have made the election closer, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Obviously, these changes have the potential to alter the outcome of the 2016 election, but they are not a good substitute for fielding a more appealing candidate. In a very real way, this effort to change the rules smacks of desperation. It not only will galvanize the left for the midterms (so we can try to repeal the reforms), but it delegitimizes the eventual Republican nominee, the Republican Party, and our entire electoral system. Imagine if Romney had become president after losing by four percentage points and nearly five million votes! Does anyone think that would have been a healthy outcome?

But, you may remember, I predicted that this would happen. The GOP does not want to change and they will do what they can to compensate for their increasing unpopularity even if it means bending or outright breaking the rules. They are a neo-fascist party, and quite dangerous.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/1/24/215314/023

[Cigar]

Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral CollegeHowever, Republicans might be outsmarting themselves. If this system of divvying up electoral votes were adopted nationwide, you could make a case for it. But the unfairness of adopting this system only in states that Democrats usually win is palpable. States in the deep South, for example, have no intention of adopting a similar system, and will continue awarding 100 percent of their electoral votes to Republican candidates. Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they're doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it's likely to prompt a backlash.

Democrats don't have the votes to fight back with anything similar, but they do have another weapon in their back pocket: the National Popular Vote interstate compact, an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. If states with more than half of all electoral votes sign up for this, it goes into effect.

So far, only nine states with a total of 132 electoral votes have signed up. But if Republicans continue their patently shameful effort to game the electoral college system, it might spur more states to sign up. That's what a sense of outrage can do. Republicans might want to think about that as they move forward. If they keep going, the end result might be a system even less favorable to them than the current electoral college.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/republicans-might-be-outsmarting-themselves-electoral-college

[zelmo1234]

That's the popular vote...

(I hope that's what you meant...)

Yes it is, but I do not think that you will ever get the amendment passed

[zelmo1234]

Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral College

However, Republicans might be outsmarting themselves. If this system of divvying up electoral votes were adopted nationwide, you could make a case for it. But the unfairness of adopting this system only in states that Democrats usually win is palpable. States in the deep South, for example, have no intention of adopting a similar system, and will continue awarding 100 percent of their electoral votes to Republican candidates. Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they're doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it's likely to prompt a backlash.

Democrats don't have the votes to fight back with anything similar, but they do have another weapon in their back pocket: the National Popular Vote interstate compact, an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. If states with more than half of all electoral votes sign up for this, it goes into effect.

So far, only nine states with a total of 132 electoral votes have signed up. But if Republicans continue their patently shameful effort to game the electoral college system, it might spur more states to sign up. That's what a sense of outrage can do. Republicans might want to think about that as they move forward. If they keep going, the end result might be a system even less favorable to them than the current electoral college.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/republicans-might-be-outsmarting-themselves-electoral-college

Again it would take a constitutional amendment to take away the states rights to award the populat vote, so not only would half of the states have to adopt the program but it would require action on federal govenremnts part.

And right now you do not have a chance to change it in the south but just like in the northern states, every blue moon, the republicans take control, usually when the dems completly destroy the economy like in MI, OH, PA.

When this happens they go for broke because it will not be long until they aer out of office, once the jobs return. This will go to a statewide vote in MI and will pass, if it makes the ballot, is it different, Yes but to just ahve the turn out in detroit award the state? Not fair either.

If these states do get this passed, it will make it very hard for a liberal dem like Obama to win, but a more center canidate would have an OK chance.

And lets face it politics is a blood sport!

[patrickt]

Yesterday, Virginia Republicans took the first step to move a GOP plan to rig the Electoral College forward in that state. Similar plans are under consideration in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

The Republican election rigging plan targets blue states that President Obama won in 2008 and 2012, and changes the way they allocate electoral votes to give many of these votes away for free to the Republican candidate for president. Under the Republican Plan, most electoral votes will be allocated to the winner of individual Congressional districts, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. Because the Republican Plan would be implemented in states that are heavily gerrymandered to favor Republicans, the resulting maps would all but guarantee that the Republican would win a majority of each state’s electoral votes, even if the Democratic candidate wins the state as a whole.

Today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a white paper detailing how this Republican election-rigging plan works — including this rather striking visual demonstration of just how effectively Republicans gerrymandered six states that are likely targets of their plan:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-shot-2013-01-24-at-9.10.37-AM.png

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/24/1488491/how-the-republicans-plan-to-rig-the-next-presidential-race-in-six-pictures/

Why do the Republicans need to rig the election system? The picture below clearly indicates they will never win a popular Vote, therefore cheating is there only recourse. In addition, Republicans insult and berate Blacks, Hispanics, Women and Gays every chance they get. Now ... even the Elderly are in their cross-hairs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v635/DainBramaged/untitled_zpsab426edd.jpg

This may work once or possibly twice ... but once again, demographics are NOT on The GOP side.

Ever wonder how the Republicans would react if their candidate won the Popular Vote, but lost the Election?

And Democrats plan on doing the way they've been doing it for at least 75 years. Why change when tried and true keeps working. Dead people voting, elderly coerced into signing absentee ballots, foreign nationals voting, liberals voting repeatedly, voters traveling from a safe home state to a swing state to vote on election day. Oh, and liberals also get to gerrymander some states and some counties in other states out of the DOJ.

And, watch the Democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent any attacks on election fraud. It's their heritage and their right.

[Cigar]

Republicans in five states, notably Virginia, have discussed changing the way they award Electoral College votes in presidential races by apportioning them on each congressional district, rather than the state's popular vote.

The reason: Republican Mitt Romney would have won the presidency despite losing the popular vote in states where the GOP controls the legislatures: Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida.

But Florida, the largest swing state, won't go along with changing the Electoral College if Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford has any say (and he has a major say).

"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and the beat us in the fourth," Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."



Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2013/01/florida-house-speaker-weatherford-rigging-the-electoral-college-is-for-sore-losers.html#storylink=addthis#storylink=cpy

[hanger4]

Hey Cigar or whomever, why is it OK for Maine and Nebraska to do this ??

Did you via thinkProgress, TPM, DailyKos or some other leftists blog site complain then ??

[Peter1469]

Both parties do it.

End the Electoral College, and Gerrymandering will affect presidential elections too.

[Mainecoons]

I don't like this idea for the simple reason that it will really increase the possibility of a candidate losing the popular vote substantially and still being made POTUS. That is a recipe for even more divisiveness than the Democrats are sowing already.

I've a better idea. Elections should be conducted on weekends and everyone should be required to show up with a photo ID. I'd severely restrict absentee balloting and require those who file them to show up in person somewhere one one of a number of designated days prior to the election to file one, or vote early again showing photo ID.

Mexico holds its elections on Sundays and everyone is required to show up in person with photo ID that is issued for free by the government.

[zelmo1234]

I still like going to a popular gov and Yes I do like a governemnt issues Free ID to eliminate the Dems p;icies of vote early and vote often in large cities.

but this will never pass, and many in these states see no reason to vote, vor president as they can't possibly overcome the votes in the large cities.

So this supresses voter turn out in haevily conservative and Liberal states alike.

It also prevents the canidates from going to many of the states, which now they would need every vote in every district. this would again spread the dollars out, and instead of just running in the 11 states, they would need to travel and buy ads in all 50 states.

I also beleive that it is up to the states to decide how they select their members to the electoral collage, now does this stink for the democrats right now, year, but it will stink for the republicans when it happens in the south. And it will make every vote more important.

[Bigred1cav]

Let's look at this. If the gop can eliminate the big city population centers from voting the tea baggers and bible banging nitwits will be able to get in office.

Hell with the people they'll get to take over shove a gun up your ass and a bible down your throat. They then will force the removal of rights from our Constitution, the first time rights have been taken by our government.

Stand your ground or as it was known before civil society took over gun fights at high noon and duels will settle grievances larger and small.

Red neck hill billy gun toting morons will roam the streets looking for someone to kill. Oh shit, I forgot they already do that.

[Morningstar]

It's a great idea. It's more democratic, and it would give folks who are in the minority in any given state a reason to get out and vote.

[Morningstar]

Anyway, the States decide how their electoral votes are designated, so it's perfectly legal, and there's nothing you can do about it. :wink:

[nic34]

It's more democratic

Riiiiight...

[patrickt]

I don't like this idea for the simple reason that it will really increase the possibility of a candidate losing the popular vote substantially and still being made POTUS. That is a recipe for even more divisiveness than the Democrats are sowing already.

I've a better idea. Elections should be conducted on weekends and everyone should be required to show up with a photo ID. I'd severely restrict absentee balloting and require those who file them to show up in person somewhere one one of a number of designated days prior to the election to file one, or vote early again showing photo ID.

Mexico holds its elections on Sundays and everyone is required to show up in person with photo ID that is issued for free by the government.

If you mean "everyone is required to show up" I don't agree. If you mean everyone who shows up is required to have a photo ID I do agree.

[Mainecoons]

That's what I meant. They have to go to the polls and show an ID if they want to vote.