On-Topic Republicans Want to Rig Presidential Elections

[maxpowr9]

And it's looking like to shift towards the democrats even further... considering urban voting demographics. Fairfax County and others are likely to push the state blue in years to come. Fairfax county went to Obama by 315k votes compared to Romney's 206k roughly...

This is the kind of plan that clearly attacks those in cities... the kind of plan a sore loser comes up with.

The thing about Virginia is that now, it has become a truly north vs south mentality. The northern part of VA has a bunch of DC people who want a suburban lifestyle and lean heavily democrat. The southern part is your typical 'Dixie' and a Republican. For those that don't know, DC, as a residential district, is the most liberal part of the country. As more Democrats flood the northern part of the state, the GOP fears that because of said concentration of voters, Virginia will become a blue state permanently.

 

[chance1]

winner take all in states is stupid

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

What does this have to do with the current Republican plan, or the thread?

 

[JayHawk]

winner take all in states is stupid

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

The problem is the partisan gerrymandering. If I chop a state up into a manner that only allows for republicans to win then a vote isn't a vote. The districts should be divided by persons total and not necessarily political lean. So the DC burbs would get say four Electoral votes and the remaining sparsely populated regions would get three and then the Hampton roads are would get two.

That is obviously the complaint of most things I have read on the possible change.

 

[JayHawk]

What does this have to do with the current Republican plan, or the thread?

Because it better represents more voters if you parse the electoral votes by local vote. There would not longer be a super swing state. They would have to actually campaign for all of our votes. So instead of this last election being Ohio's election it would be the US election. That is what he means.

I think. lol.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Because it better represents more voters if you parse the electoral votes by local vote. There would not longer be a super swing state. They would have to actually campaign for all of our votes. So instead of this last election being Ohio's election it would be the US election. That is what he means.

I think. lol.

I get that idea, but that isn't what this is about and pretending it's just a plan to make things "more fair" is disingenuous at best. Inauthentic, if you will.

 

[xbuzzerx]

winner take all in states is stupid

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

The problem is the partisan gerrymandering. If I chop a state up into a manner that only allows for republicans to win then a vote isn't a vote. The districts should be divided by persons total and not necessarily political lean. So the DC burbs would get say four Electoral votes and the remaining sparsely populated regions would get three and then the Hampton roads are would get two.

That is obviously the complaint of most things I have read on the possible change.

Well that's one problem, there's two more.

1. If it's implemented on a state-by-state basis and not uniformly, it will be used in a partisan fashion just to split the electoral vote of advantageous states and simply not implement it in others.

2. It will create recount nightmares, like the Al Franken election, except all around the country.

It could diminish confidence overall in casting a vote, imo. It's a possible effect anyway.

 

[tigerfan482]

winner take all in states is stupid

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

I agree with one person, one vote, which is why we should choose based on nationwide popular vote.

Having each state define how they want to divide up their votes is as stupid as having each state decide their own definition of marriage or having each state set their own gun laws. Elections for federal office should have uniform rules across the country. Under Virginia's proposed system, they are saying a district with 5 million voters in it is equal to a district with 50,000 voters in it. So basically, each of those 5 million peoples' votes are worth 1/100th of what each of those 50,000 peoples' votes are. This does not jive at all with the one person, one vote philosophy and is just an egregious attempt at Republicans trying to use their control of state legislatures to disenfranchise voters and manipulate the system to their liking without regard to what the popular vote actually indicates.

 

[T-Rexx]

winner take all in states is stupid

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

The issue here is not "winner take all" or "a vote should be a vote."

The issue is that Republicans are attempting to re-apportion Virginia's electoral college vote so that a Republican (and only a Republican) will get a majority of the state's electoral votes, even if a Democrat wins a substantial majority of the state's popular vote. The proposed scheme seeks to make rural Virginia votes count more than urban votes.

In 2012, 51% of the votes cast in Virginia were for Obama. If the currently-proposed Republican scheme had been in place in 2012, Obama would have been apportioned 4 of the state's 13 electoral votes, while Romney would have been given 9 - even though Romney lost the election.

In other words, Republicans have decided that if they cannot win people's votes, they'll just steal the elections.


https://prospect.org/article/virginia-republicans-move-forward-mass-disenfranchisement

 

[JayHawk]

I get that idea, but that isn't what this is about and pretending it's just a plan to make things "more fair" is disingenuous at best. Inauthentic, if you will.

Yeah I don't disagree with fighting this Virginia plan tooth and nail. However, I would and will always look to an event to drive a national conversation. Democrats should the same thing. Point out the value in the idea and then demonstrate why the republican version is a perversion of our constitution and our election system. That would be more believable and beneficial to the cause. Democratic leadership is already viewed as the adult in the room. I say solidly reinforce that concept.

 

[JayHawk]

I agree with one person, one vote, which is why we should choose based on nationwide popular vote.

Having each state define how they want to divide up their votes is as stupid as having each state decide their own definition of marriage or having each state set their own gun laws. Elections for federal office should have uniform rules across the country. Under Virginia's proposed system, they are saying a district with 5 million voters in it is equal to a district with 50,000 voters in it. So basically, each of those 5 million peoples' votes are worth 1/100th of what each of those 50,000 peoples' votes are. This does not jive at all with the one person, one vote philosophy and is just an egregious attempt at Republicans trying to use their control of state legislatures to disenfranchise voters and manipulate the system to their liking without regard to what the popular vote actually indicates.

Hear, hear. Although why not attack a larger issue and attempt to have a national conversation about gerrymandering. ?? If we developed a bi-partisan panel to do so instead of leaving it willy nilly to who ever happens to be in power every ten years then we might stand a chance at correcting many issues.

No state the size of Wyoming will allow their influence to be diminished by a popular vote. SO that argument is fairly dead imho.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Hear, hear. Although why not attack a larger issue and attempt to have a national conversation about gerrymandering. ?? If we developed a bi-partisan panel to do so instead of leaving it willy nilly to who ever happens to be in power every ten years then we might stand a chance at correcting many issues.

No state the size of Wyoming will allow their influence to be diminished by a popular vote. SO that argument is fairly dead imho.

I have sincerely never understood why gerrymandering is not illegal. Perhaps someone a lot more versed than I am in the details of how congressional districts are partitioned and why it's legal to gerrymander could enlighten me.

 

[Just_Believe18]

winner take all in states is stupid

a vote should be a vote

not sure why anyone would disagree

chance1, you are off topic.

This thread is about Virginia's Gerrymandering plan where districts would be awarded by majority vote as points to the electoral college. It has nothing to do with one vote counting equally amongst others in the state.

 

[T-Rexx]

In 2012, 51% of the votes cast in Virginia were for Obama. If the currently-proposed Republican scheme had been in place in 2012, Obama would have been apportioned 4 of the state's 13 electoral votes, while Romney would have been given 9 - even though Romney lost the election.

Interesting discussion by James Bouie.

Ohio was critical to the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012. Obama carried Ohio with 52% of the vote, and he was allocated all 20 of the state's electoral votes. If the Virginia plan had been in place in Ohio in 2012, Obama would have been allocated 4 electoral college votes while Romney, the loser, would have been given 16. Ohio has a Republican governor, a Republican house, and a Republican senate. Although there is currently no suggestion of implementing a Virginia-style plan here, it would easily pass if it were put to a vote.

The same is true of many states of the United States, especially in the Midwest. Republicans really are in a position to steal presidential elections routinely, if schemes like this become popular across the USA.

 

[JB3]

Their reaction, and their proposals, are no different than what happened after the election in 2000. Politicians of both parties, when they're issued a defeat, fall back on 'fixing' the system when it suits them, and arguing against such 'fixes' when it doesn't.

This insanity just reinforces what Kenneth the Page said about Republicans today.

 

[T-Rexx]

Their reaction, and their proposals, are no different than what happened after the election in 2000.

No, not in the least.

Democrats won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral college vote to the Republican candidate.

Democrats did not respond by attempting to rig the electoral process so that they might win future elections, even if a majority of the voters should cast their ballots for the other party.

Politicians of both parties, when they're issued a defeat, fall back on 'fixing' the system when it suits them, and arguing against such 'fixes' when it doesn't.

The Virginia scheme is not an attempt to "fix" any problems with the electoral college. It is an attempt by Republicans to steal offices they cannot win with votes. Democrats have not tried to discourage Republicans from voting, have not tried to reduce voting hours in Republican areas but not Democratic, and have not tried to make the votes of Republicans count less than those of Democrats.

This is not a bipartisan tyranny. It is Republican and Republican alone.

 

[frankfrank]

I am torn on this. I think it is entirely agreeable that votes begin counting across the nation. There is already a Interstate compact introduced recently to give all electors to whomever wins the popular vote. The stipulation of the signatories is that the majority of states must do so. That was a democratic effort to do away with the electoral college and then essentially base it on the popular vote without changing the electoral college.

Interesting, how come I don't remember hearing about this proposal...AT ALL? It would actually allow the Electoral College to be retained, which is important, because I think that getting rid of it Constitutionally would be IMPOSSIBLE. (When would "we" EVER possibly find 38 states that would vote to abolish it? NEVER.)

This is an idiotic and horribly undemocratic idea. Number of districts won? Who cares? Why should a district with hundreds of thousands of people like in Virginia not have as much say as those with far less people? Virginia went to Obama because of the urban centers. It's a disgusting idea and it has no place in the system. Yes, this system has problems... but this isn't the solution. Giving more say to lightly populated districts over ones with more population is like telling people in cities their votes don't matter.

I've always assumed that each District is supposed to have a SIMILAR population...that you cannot have one District with 3 million people in it, and another District with 7,000 people in it. Is this no longer even true?

With this information which I didn't realize before, this is how I would write a law for Redistricting:
1. Other than exceptions below, one 5-digit Zip Code cannot be part of more than one district; a Zip Code must fall entirely within only ONE C. D. whenever possible. (I've said this in the past. I don't think that a Zip Code *ever* has more than 40,000 or 50,000 people in it, which is far smaller than a Congressional District.) However, if a Zip Code includes parts of more than one County (or equivalent), or parts both within and outside of a city larger than the population of one average Congressional District, that Zip Code may include two Congressional Districts within its boundaries, only as necessary.
2a. If a large county has a population larger than the AVERAGE population of a Congressional District within a state, that county must include as many *COMPLETE* Congressional Distrcts as possible, within these limits. The excess population of that county can be shared with only ONE Congressional District which also includes people who are not residents of that large county. If a county has a population smaller than the average population of a Congressional District within a state, it may not be represented by more than one District.
2b. A similar rule would apply to large cities which exceed the average population of a Congressional District, as well.
3. All areas of a Congressional District must be contiguous - none of this fucking stupid "let's connect the three parts of this District via some goddam freeway" bullshit. (Yes I'll put it in the law just like that. )
4. Given the population of the average Congressional District within a state, no District may have a population variance of no more than 10% from this average.
5. If a County (or the equivalent for that state) has a population smaller than the average population of the state's Congressional Districts, it may not lie within more than one Congressional District.
6. If a Zip Code crosses a County line or is not entirely within the territory of a city that has a larger population than an average Congressional District, then and only then may a Zip Code be included in two Congressional Districts.
7. Boundaries of Congressional Districts would be affected in this order of priority: County lines, city/community territorial borders, Zip Code borders.
8. No waiver of any of these rules is allowed, unless it is impossible to conform to them in any way.

USING ILLINOIS AS AN EXAMPLE: 18 Congressional Districts. 2010 POPULATION: State 12, 419, 293. Chicago 2,695,598.
AVERAGE POPULATION PER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Approximately 690,000.

Chicago would have THREE WHOLE Congressional Districts entirely confined within the City. That would represent approximately 2,070,000 people.

A **FOURTH** entire Congressional District could actually fit into Chicago as well, because the three Districts would leave a surplus of about 625,000 people. The fourth District could include those leftover 625,000 people and it would still be within 10% of the average C. D. population. Alternatively, Oak Park (51,932) could be added to that fourth Chicago Congressional District, because it is territorially adjacent to Chicago, and that fourth District would be nearly the precise average population of a C. D. Including one or two more suburbs, as well (such as Berwyn or River Grove or Elmwood Park) would keep that District within population bounds as well.

**NO OTHER CITY IN ILLINOIS** would be within more than one Congressional District (UNLESS the city lies within more than one county), because no other city in Illinois has a population even remotely close to Congressional District populations. By the way, I bet you can't guess what the second-largest city in Illinois is.###

This would eliminate, for example, "MY" Congressional District including only most of the city of Peoria (I live in a Republican-Gerrymandered District), while the Black parts of Peoria are drawn into a different District Gerrymandered as a Democratic one.

The "County rule" would make it a little trippy trying to draw Districts in Colorado, because I believe that Denver has territory in four different Counties. However, I am assuming that Arapahoe and perhaps one of the other Counties has a small enough population to be in one District.

This all would end Gerrymandering once and for all.

I'm extremely wary of this scheme especially if it may only get applied on a state-by-state basis, because as many have already pointed out, it will result in candidates winning who lost the popular vote and do so only because of this change, possibly even substantially lost the popular vote.

And, of course as the agenda suits them, those states will be cherry-picked.

I never thought I'd see the day where Gerrymandering would be the basis for choosing the next President of the United States.

YOU BEAT ME TO IT! I was going to comment about "Gerrymandering the Presidency."

I have sincerely never understood why gerrymandering is not illegal. Perhaps someone a lot more versed than I am in the details of how congressional districts are partitioned and why it's legal to gerrymander could enlighten me.

Somebody? Anybody? I am almost SURE that I remember my high school Civics class (ca. 1964) actually telling me that Gerrymandering was illegal. It would probably be very instructive to look at Congressional District maps from the 1940's or something. Very possibly none of these districts that would have made Rorschach's head explode.

###It's Aurora. You didn't guess it, did you?

 

[CoolBlue71]

The Republicans are just outright corrupt now. And it says a lot about the citizenry that backs them with their votes.

 

[chance1]

What does this have to do with the current Republican plan, or the thread?

Dude - Make up your face

Talk down or to me

Or post in the porn section.

One or the other

 

[chance1]

The problem is the partisan gerrymandering. If I chop a state up into a manner that only allows for republicans to win then a vote isn't a vote. The districts should be divided by persons total and not necessarily political lean. So the DC burbs would get say four Electoral votes and the remaining sparsely populated regions would get three and then the Hampton roads are would get two.

That is obviously the complaint of most things I have read on the possible change.

I agree

imagine that