Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Electoral Ploy Will Backfire
Arizona Daily Sun ^ | January 31, 2013 | Steve & Cokie Roberts

Posted on 01/31/2013 11:13:56 AM PST by fractionated

"We must stop being the stupid party," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned fellow Republicans recently. "It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults."

Many Republicans apparently weren't listening, because they insist on doing stupid things. Exhibit A: lawmakers in a half-dozen states who are trying to alter the Electoral College system to give Republicans more votes.

This is a desperate and ultimately self-defeating reaction to the changing demographics of America. The GOP calculus seems to be: We can never appeal to minorities, and we cannot win the presidency without them, so let's rig the system to reduce their influence -- and, in the process, really tick them off. The result will be to make minorities feel even more unwelcome in the Republican Party than they already do, and more likely to step up their organizing and voting efforts.

In all but two cases, Maine and Nebraska, all of a state's electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Republicans loved this system when they were regularly capturing the White House (five of seven times between 1980 and 2004). But Barack Obama's two victories have scared the heck out of them, and with good reason.

In 1980, the electorate was 88 percent white, and Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of that vote in easily defeating Democrat Jimmy Carter. Last year, Mitt Romney actually bested Reagan among whites, winning 59 percent. But whites accounted for only 72 percent of the total vote, and Obama crushed Romney with minorities, taking 93 percent of blacks, 73 percent of Asians and 71 percent of Hispanics.

These minority voters, often clustered in urban areas, provided key margins for Obama in swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia. So, figured those brilliant GOP strategists, perhaps the law could be changed to allocate electoral votes by congressional district, thus boosting the leverage of rural areas and undercutting that Democratic advantage. If that alternative system had been in effect last fall in Virginia, for example, Romney would have won nine of 13 electoral votes -- even while losing the state by 150,000 popular votes.

From a crass political viewpoint, it might be worth enraging minorities if the GOP ploy had any chance of working. But it doesn't.

Smart Republicans are appalled. "It's not going to happen in Virginia," insisted the state's ambitious Republican governor, Bob McDonnell. State Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel called the scheme "pretty shortsighted." Then a state Senate committee controlled by Republicans killed the bill.

Even if these proposals somehow became law, they would immediately be challenged in court as racially biased. And that's exactly what they are. State Sen. Charles Carrico, the lead sponsor in Virginia, candidly explained his motive in The Washington Post: "The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn't matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them."

Most federal judges will surely understand that "densely populated areas" -- along with "urban" and "metro" -- are code words for race. And by the way, Sen. Carrico, that's how democracy works. The majority wins. Blacks in Alabama and gays in Idaho also feel outvoted.

Just because an idea is stupid doesn't make it surprising. Attempts to rig the Electoral College flow from the same motives that inspired Republican lawmakers to pass laws limiting voter participation in a dozen states last fall. Many of the laws were tossed out on legal grounds, but they gave Democrats in "densely populated areas" a pitch-perfect rallying cry.

The Nation quoted Matt Barreto, a pollster specializing in the Latino vote: "There were huge organizing efforts in the black, Hispanic and Asian communities, more than there would have been, as a direct result of the voter suppression efforts." The Rev. Tony Minor, an African-American minister in Ohio, added: "When they went after big mama's voting rights, they made all of us mad."

Sanity has not completely deserted Republican ranks. In Florida, state House Speaker Will Weatherford told reporters that Republicans don't need "to change the rules of the game" and offered a different option: "I think we need to get better." Fellow Floridian Sen. Marco Rubio is doing exactly that, bravely joining a bipartisan group of U.S. senators in proposing a reasonable compromise on immigration reform. Jeb and George Bush have both proved that Republicans can win a decent share of Hispanic support if they respect and understand those voters.

Subverting democracy by suffocating minorities is the opposite of respect. It ignores Jindal's advice and damages the Republican brand. Talk about stupid.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electionrigging; elections; electoralcollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last
To: Impy

I’m pushing it in my state and I don’t care what others do.

The Detroit fraud alone makes it hard for rural districts to justify voting at all. We know we’re going to lose so why bother.

Making all the districts within a state electorally equal makes perfect sense.


51 posted on 02/03/2013 7:59:04 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek; fieldmarshaldj; EQAndyBuzz; Timber Rattler
The maps and the "counties" silliness remind me of this cartoon:
52 posted on 02/03/2013 8:12:33 AM PST by fractionated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fractionated
Oops... that didn't format properly:


53 posted on 02/03/2013 8:13:39 AM PST by fractionated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Ultimately, what saves the GOP from the stupidity of the Priebus crowd is the governors who actually have to run something besides their mouths:
Why the GOP’s electoral vote gambit won’t work

...As The Fix’s Aaron Blake noted, proposing such a dramatic change is best done as far away from the next presidential election as possible, in hopes of avoiding a backlash over seemingly gaming the system for your side’s benefit.

But for the governors in the states where the overhaul is being floated, it’s impossible to look beyond 2014. Endorsing a new system that clearly helps the GOP would risk alienating independents and Democratic crossover votes, something those Republican governors can hardly afford at this point.


54 posted on 02/03/2013 8:17:52 AM PST by fractionated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Worry about your own state.


55 posted on 02/03/2013 8:40:19 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Well if you want a Republican elected in 2016 you should “care “ about what the other states do as well.

MI and PA are the 2 states where this needs to happen the most.


56 posted on 02/03/2013 8:47:16 AM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Well said.


57 posted on 02/03/2013 8:49:22 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Next POTUS election is in 2016, next redistricting is in 2022. The districts are gonna be the same for 10 years.


58 posted on 02/03/2013 8:50:54 AM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I want the other states to do it but I’m not going to push them to do it. I’m a big states rights supporter.

I also wish there was a way of dumping the 17th amendment without having to risk a constitutional convention.


59 posted on 02/03/2013 8:53:43 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; fractionated; AuH2ORepublican; cripplecreek

To clarify I would still support this if it was nationwide (which it’s not) but I’m more than happy in doing it in a few states to help us win and not even considering doing it in Texas or any state we easily win statewide. States get to choose their own methods of dolling out E votes. Dems don’t like it? Tough.

If a really liberal state ever did it (Cali rejected something like this that was on a ballot initiative) that would be GREAT.

I predict that even after this lockout, hockey is gonna get more popular.


60 posted on 02/03/2013 8:56:49 AM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; fractionated; AuH2ORepublican; cripplecreek

“Dems don’t like it?”

Then it must be good. Count me in.


61 posted on 02/03/2013 9:10:16 AM PST by GOPsterinMA (Time to musk up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

If you were a liberal Democrat, I’m sure it would.


62 posted on 02/03/2013 10:22:10 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Proportional allotment makes a lot more sense than what we have now.


63 posted on 02/03/2013 10:24:26 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I agree that the proposal is a good one. If the proposed system was used, last year, Romney would have won about 25 electoral votes in California. If every state allocates electoral votes according to the proposed change, presidential candidates would campaign in more states, instead of only caring about several states.


64 posted on 02/03/2013 11:03:15 AM PST by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PhilCollins

If michigan districts went along party lines it would have given Romney 9 districts and Obama 5.

Obviously there are swing districts so Romney would have had an advantage with a little breathing room.

I’d be happy knowing that my district actually got an electoral vote in favor of the guy we voted for even if we lost overall.


65 posted on 02/03/2013 12:21:57 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1

Todd Akin was borderline retarded.


66 posted on 02/03/2013 12:24:40 PM PST by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1

I thought Priebus did a decent job. Every time I heard him he sounded like one of us.

I have no use for Tokyo Rove.


67 posted on 02/03/2013 12:26:48 PM PST by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Also, if you work for the government (with the sole exception of those who put their lives on the line in military or police/fire/emergency capacities), you should also not have a vote. You’re voting for your own employment and income at the expense of those who do not.

I'll agree with that if we are excused from paying any taxes (Federal/State/some local).

Otherwise you can go pound sand. 'Pod.

68 posted on 02/03/2013 12:31:33 PM PST by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

You won’t escape taxes, but with drastically fewer government workers voting, I can almost guarantee your tax burden will be reduced.


69 posted on 02/03/2013 1:23:19 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Sure, we’ll do it in TX—when the Dem legislators adopt it in CA; we’ll do it in GA if they adopt it in NY; we’ll do it in MO if they do it in MN; we’ll do it in TN and IN if they do it in NJ, etc.

I think that a fair method would be to allocate one EV per CD carried and then have the two extra EVs go 1 for the candidate who wins the statewide vote and 1 for the one who carries the most districts (and if there’s a tie in the number of CDs carried, that EV can go to the tied candidate with the most statewide votes).


70 posted on 02/03/2013 1:40:04 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Sure, we’ll do it in TX—when the Dem legislators adopt it in CA; we’ll do it in GA if they adopt it in NY; we’ll do it in MO if they do it in MN; we’ll do it in TN and IN if they do it in NJ, etc.

I think that a fair method would be to allocate one EV per CD carried and then have the two extra EVs go 1 for the candidate who wins the statewide vote and 1 for the one who carries the most districts (and if there’s a tie in the number of CDs carried, that EV can go to the tied candidate with the most statewide votes).


71 posted on 02/03/2013 1:40:21 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Impy; Strategerist; Timber Rattler; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; NFHale; GOPsterinMA; ...
RE :”Frankly this is the best idea the GOP has had in a while. To hell with this disingenuous propaganda article and the 10000 others that have been written (by liberals).
.......
If every state did this it would be keeping more with the principles of the EC. Back then they were worried about state versus state, North versus South. Now it’s dem-packed urban strongholds within states against the rest of the state.”

Here's some things to consider, I know I have a habit of being the party pooper.

So far a couple of states VA and FL have chickened out on this. That is because the Dems are making it an issue.
Last year Dems used some of the new states voting laws: voter ID + limiting voting times to get out the minority Dem vote. They calling it ‘voter suppression and they broadcast it to get them out to vote. This is likely a reason those states chickened out now on this.

Back in 2006 the Republican congress under GWB re-authorized the Voting Rights Act as is.(to get minority votes I assume.) ‘
That Federal law requires many ‘Southern states’ including VA and FL to get permission from the justice department before changing ANY election laws. This was used last year to kill new voting ID laws in some states.

So I am not optimistic about this going anywhere.

72 posted on 02/03/2013 6:49:49 PM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA; cripplecreek; SunkenCiv; ...

Like I said GOP wussing out is only problem. VRA could be used against us in the South. Can’t save the dems in MI, or PA (states we won’t win statewide unless we’re winning easily anyway so there is zero downside to doing it there) if those states man up.

The dems are filthy hypocrites, after Osama won 1 vote from Nebraska (where along with Maine they have this system) Republicans tried to abolish it in that state where the democrats winning 1 vote from Omaha is only possibility other than the GOP winning them all. The liberal newspapers in state all opposed the move praising the system as the greatest thing since electricity on farms and every democrat in the (officially nonpartisan) state senate voted no and the measure was defeated (since not all the Republicans voted for it).

They are OF COURSE for it where it helps them in a Republican state with 1 competitive district, if it came up in Texas they would pee themselves with glee supporting it. Mentioning this is the perfect counter to shite like this article. Dirty nasty hypocrite swine have no legs to stand on.

MAN UP GOP, GROW SOME PILLS.


73 posted on 02/03/2013 11:12:45 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
That Federal law requires many ‘Southern states’ including VA and FL to get permission from the justice department before changing ANY election laws. This was used last year to kill new voting ID laws in some states.

Yeah, that's a particularly obnoxious part of the Civil Rights Act, to which only the original 11 Confederate Stares are subject. Northern states (like Pennsylvania) don't have to answer to the DOJ on their voting laws, unless of course DOJ sues in federal court.

74 posted on 02/04/2013 2:29:23 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Meanwhile the democrats are quietly setting up these interstate voting compacts where several states agree to give their electoral votes to the overall winner of those several states.

This means that even if your state votes overwhelmingly republican, your votes will go to the democrats if surrounding states go democrat. Fortunately the deal was killed here in Michigan a few years ago.


75 posted on 02/04/2013 3:58:24 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Obviously, when you get caught cheating often enough you don’t get the benefit of the doubt like everybody else.


76 posted on 02/04/2013 4:09:40 AM PST by fractionated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler; Impy
RE :”Yeah, that's a particularly obnoxious part of the Civil Rights Act, to which only the original 11 Confederate Stares are subject. Northern states (like Pennsylvania) don't have to answer to the DOJ on their voting laws, unless of course DOJ sues in federal court.”

Republican congress under GWB re-authorized it in 2006 as is. Now those states get blocked from passing voting ID laws for even getting rid of early voting, and forget this new idea.

Doesnt look like it got them many minority votes that year or in 2008 either. That made as much sense as giving illegals the vote.

77 posted on 02/04/2013 4:57:41 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj

The 4 years in the middle of Bush where we had both Houses of Congress were horribly squandered.


78 posted on 02/06/2013 4:53:19 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj

Yeah the national popular vote thing, it only goes into effect if states that constitute a majority of the EC pass it.

CA, IL, NJ, WA, MA, VT, HI, and MD have passed it. All were under total rat control when they did (Hawaii overrode the veto of former RINO Governor Lingle).


79 posted on 02/06/2013 5:02:52 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Impy

It was voted down in Michigan a few years ago thank God.


80 posted on 02/06/2013 5:06:04 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

In 1824, five states (DE, IL, LA, MD and NY) split their electoral votes between three candidates, none of whom got a majority. The election was decided by the House of Representatives, who gave it to the candidate who did NOT win the popular vote, which caused a furor.


81 posted on 02/25/2013 8:24:11 PM PST by Galatians513 (this space available for catchy tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson