Posted on 01/12/2013 1:39:44 PM PST by DanMiller
Reelection of its incumbents and power of course, but what else matters? Anything?
An article by Scott Rasmussen published yesterday contends that
Just a few days after reaching [the fiscal cliff] agreement, an inside-the-Beltway publication reported another area of bipartisan agreement. Politico explained that while Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans "in many a post-election soul-searching session" have come to agree. More precisely, the article said the party's Election 2012 failures have "brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment Republicans: They have a primary problem."As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that Republican voters think it's OK to replace incumbent senators and congressman who don't represent the views of their constituents. In 2012, for example, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle.
. . . .
So, according to Politico, the Washington team is gearing up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment candidates. (Emphasis added.)
That makes sense to those whose sole goal is winning a majority in Congress rather than changing the course of government policy. Seen from the outside, though, it sounds like the professional politicians are saying that the only way to win is to pick more candidates like the insiders. Hearing that message, the reaction of many Republican and conservative voters is, "Why bother?" (Emphasis added.)
That's why more than two-thirds of Republican voters believe GOP officials in Washington have lost touch with the party's base.
The Republican establishment has two choices. They can act as mature party leaders of a national political party, or they can protect their own self-interest.
There are good reasons for conservative voters to "bother." If we don't, who will? Party leaders won't; they seem comfortable with things as they are. When the time comes to vote, most "honorable members" leave their consciences if not their brains outside and do as their party leaders tell them to. Those who reject party control can be stripped of committee assignments and otherwise disciplined. Hence, few reject party control.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B55YgD1gr0c?feature=player_detailpage]
Here's another video. Relevant? Substitute "U.S. Senate" for "House of Peers" and it makes a bit of contextual sense. The Senate was, after all, modeled on the House of Peers as the House was modeled on the House of Commons.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUAWXUw_iI?feature=player_detailpage]
Should the Senate emulate the House of Peers by doing nothing -- and doing it very well? The Senate has been doing a lot of that. However, since no legislation can pass without approval by both houses, doing nothing can be good or bad depending on what one wants done. Doing nothing well -- as in doing everything badly -- is a bit different; both houses do much of that.
More seriously, the Republican Party is evidently trying to appear "moderate" to appeal to more voters and thereby ensure the reelection of its favored incumbents. That requires it to move ever leftward in tandem with the Democrat Party. Former House Speaker Pelosi seems to like their strategy.
When fiscal cliff legislation passed with mainly Democratic votes, Republicans griped, “Who’s the Speaker?” It was humiliating for the GOP majority to play the handmaiden to minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Asked if the lopsided vote makes her the de facto Speaker of the House, Pelosi demurred, coyly saying “not quite,” and reveling in her renewed clout. After the Democrats failed to regain control of the House in last year’s election, Pelosi appeared headed for a largely symbolic role as leader of the minority party in a chamber where the majority rules with an iron hand.Republican infighting turned that assumption on its head with Pelosi suddenly looking stronger and more relevant than anybody anticipated, and not just because of Democratic votes that avoided the fiscal cliff. Unlike her counterpart on the Republican side, Pelosi is a leader with a firm lock on her caucus.
Does Speaker Boehner want President Obama to kiss him too? Sometimes it seems as though he does.
It can probably be arranged. For a price -- if we are willing to pay it and if we fail to be as effective in purging librul Republicans as Speaker Boehner has been in purging conservative Republicans.
Does Speaker Boehner want the Republican Party to move further and further leftward in tandem with the Democrat Party? If so, a strategy of appealing to the largest and most diverse audience possible makes sense, just as it would if the party were peddling soap or breakfast cereal. That may be its marketing strategy, but if conservatives are to have a strong voice in Government it leaves us with little choice beyond going elsewhere.
What should be the Republican Party's job?
As a minority party, its job should be to prevent the majority party from injuring America beyond restoration, using every lawful substantive and procedural ploy in its arsenal. That it can't do so perfectly is no excuse for not trying or for backing off when it becomes inconvenient to continue. As a majority party (should that ever happen again) its job will be to rectify mistakes made by the previous majority party, to make as few more of them as possible and to move the nation bit by bit to the right. Is the Republican Party as presently constituted capable of doing that?
Beyond that, its most important job, whether in or out of power, is to demand rigorous adherence to the Constitution -- the charter upon which our Federal Government was uniquely founded. It must do that not only when it is popular but also when it is unpopular. That's one of the reasons why we have a Federal Republic, rather than a democracy based on popular vote -- something modern technology has made it easy to have if we wanted it. We don't and shouldn't.
To the extent that the Constitution is diminished so is the nation. It was intentionally made very difficult to amend. It can be amended if necessary, but in no event should it be evaded, avoided, ignored or otherwise treated as optional. We have seen the results when that happens. Want an example?
Venezuela -- a model democracy?
Anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the situation in Venezuela might want to go here and read a dozen or so recent articles. Need more? Here's an article I wrote in May of last year. Here's another.
When el Presidente Chávez took office in 1999, he began only slowly to implement his “reforms.” To a casual observer, few changes were apparent in Venezuela between 1997 when my wife and I first arrived and late 2001 when we left, probably never to return. We had a few concerns about the future of the country under Chávez but they were low on our list of reasons not to buy land and build our home in the state of Merida, up in the Andes. Mainly, we wanted to continue sailing and Merida is inconveniently far from an ocean.Chávez’ initiatives increased dramatically in number and in magnitude only when he was well into his seemingly endless terms in office. Maybe he had heard the story of the frog put into a pleasantly warm but slowly heating pot of water. The frog failed to realize until too late that he was being boiled for dinner. By then the frog had become unable to jump out of the pot.
Now in his second (and, one hopes, final term) President Obama has flexibility not dramatically less than did el Presidente Chávez once his power was well on the way to becoming firmly established. Perhaps the frogs are beginning to feel the heat; perhaps that will come later.
As Chávez steps into history, should Venezuela be our nation's role model?
h/t Devil's Excrement
Where are we going?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0?feature=player_detailpage]
Even leaving the Constitution aside, how many others like this are there now? Somebody has to be held accountable and pay. But gosh darn! Who should it be? As they and others in comparable circumstances continue to multiply, how many more will there be as their children mature sufficiently to reproduce and for little else? And reproduce. And reproduce. Here's a longer version if anyone is interested.
How frequently is that pitiful scene repeated across the nation now? If spending on the welfare state continues to grow, how often will the scene be repeated over the next decade or two?
Personal responsibility? What's that? Who should take care of her children and other consequences of personal irresponsibility funded by a "compassionate" Government at the expense of us all? Should we ask el Commandante Chávez? As long as his now uncertain ability to care for his people continues, support for him can remain a viable substitute for personal responsibility. Should we ask El Commandante President Obama? He has many other important priorities.
Freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility. Illusions of freedom can but should be unacceptable.
An illusion of freedom can be seen as real no less than can a 3D motion picture; when the movie bad guy throws a knife into the audience, some may duck but even then they understand that the knife illusion can't hurt them. In that sense, the knife illusion is preferable to a real knife. Most who prefer the illusion of freedom to actual freedom are probably aware of the differences between a real knife and the illusion of one in a 3D motion picture. Do they prefer an illusion of freedom to its reality because reality includes the freedom to fail -- and to suffer the consequences -- as well as the freedom to succeed? The illusion of freedom increasingly causes the consequences of failure to be imposed on others. Some probably like that. Others perhaps prefer the illusion without thinking; or maybe they enjoy the illusion that they are thinking about it.
Recognition of the possibility of failure is an impetus to do the work needed to succeed. The chances of success for those who do not recognize the possibility of failure -- and hence the need to pay attention to what they have to do avoid it -- are slim.
A "compassionate" Government seeks to prevent the failure of its favorites or at least to cushion their landings. The leadership of the Republican Party should realize that it is fully capable of failure and that, unlike Democrat Party supporters, the consequences of their failures are unlikely to be cushioned by a "compassionate" Democrat Government. If the Republican Party has not already failed its chances of doing so are high and increasing. If it does not take remedial action, starting now, the rest of us need to prepare for its demise by birthing its replacement. That kid had better mature and take responsibility fast, because if he doesn't it will probably be too late.
Repealing the 17 amendment is key to restoring states rights if you can’t understand that than the republic means nothing to you. Count your self as part of the problem. Good day.
“If you’re talking about this exact moment, yes, there would be more Republicans in the Senate at present than there are under the popular vote method.”
AL: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010, when Democrats had majorities in both state houses), instead of 2 Republicans
AK: 2 Republicans (probably both RINOs, since conservative Republicans didn’t win legislative majorities until 2012) (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
AZ: 2 Republicans(elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
AR: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
CA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
CO: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
DE: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
FL: 2 Republicans (probably one being RINO Charlie Crist, whi has since become a Democrat) (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
GA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am. (but 2 Democrats from 1913-2005)
HI: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
ID: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
IL: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
IN: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
IA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
KS: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
KY: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010, when Democrats had large House majorities and Republicans had small Senate majorities), instead of 2 Republicans
LA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
ME: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
MD: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
MA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am. (and Kerry’s replacement would be guaranteed to be a D)
MI: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 2 Democrats (Dems had large House majorities and Republicans large Senate majorities, so I think they’d elect one RINO and one Democrat)
MN: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Democrats
MS: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Republicans
MO: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Democrat and 1 Republican
MT: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Democrats
NE: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NV: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
NH: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
NJ: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NM: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NY: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NC: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
ND: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
OH: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem House control in 2010)
OK: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
OR: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
PA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem House control in 2010)
RI: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
SC: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
SD: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
TN: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem/RINO House control in 2008), same as under the 17th Am.
TX: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
UT: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
VT: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
VA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem Senate control in 2008), instead of 2 Democrats
WA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
WV: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am. (and Rockefeller’s seat surely would stay D next year)
WI: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
WY: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
So with state legislatures electing Senators we currently would have a Senate with 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans—exactly the same number as we have today with elected Senators! And those 45 Republicans would include far more RINOs if the state legislators made the picks, sometimes because small GOP legislative majorities or Democrat control of the other house makes a compromise unavoidable, but more often because several states have RINO-controlled legislators and, even when they don’t, career politicians are more likely to elect go-along-to-get-along types such as David Dewhurst of Texas.
So I would oppose any attempt to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Like I said it is not a static situation. Repealing the 17th would put a whole new spin on state politics, I feel decentralizing the power of the cities over suburban and rural voters. Individual legislatures would have much more attention and that would be a good thing. As it is now the states have such little power it is almost a joke, the exact opposite of the design of the original republic.
Hey, you could repeal several amendments in returning to the Constitutional roots, but it doesn’t mean we’ll be better off. I’ve laid out my arguments that repeal of the 17th would be a serious mistake, and exactly what types of people would get elected. You guys have yet to enunciate reasons beyond wishing and hoping that it will somehow magically restore “states rights.” You choose to ignore the arguments I and others have laid out that would be an actual concrete result of such a move. It’s very curious and astonishingly naive.
Again, name-calling in the absence of a substantive argument is not making your cause. Repeal of the 17th would be creating a serious problem by increasing corruption, cronyism and statism (and lessening the chances of electing Conservatives), so hence your comment is naked projection.
WV hasn’t had a CD vote for the Democrat since 1996 (back when the entire state was heavily Dem), and all three CDs voted overwhelmingly for Romney. Switching to the ME/NE method would do nothing for WV Demcorats.
The Dems will not be able to win the TX senate and house for the foreseeable future even if they somehow won the governorship. Same thing for GA and other Southern states where they could do damage if they switched to a ME/NE scheme.
The Dems now control CO and NV, which were traditionally Republican in presidential elections, but switching to ME/NE in those states would only help the GOP, since both states gave Obama fairly comfortable majorities and would favor the Dem presidential nominee in 2016 (although both should be heavily contested).
So there are no mirror images of PA, MI, OH, FL, VA or WI controlled by the Democrats where they could counteract.
I need to correct you here. Election of said Senators would fall to the bodies elected AFTER said dates. Hence the Senators taking office in 2009/11/13 would be elected by the legislators in joint session by the members who won in 2008/10/12, not the prior elected body. This would alter your list...
As follows (with current in parenthesis):
AL: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (GOP won the leg in 2010) (2R)
AK: 2 GOP (but both likely RINOs, as stated) (1D, 1R)
AZ: 2 GOP (same)
AR: 2 Dem (1D, 1R)
CA: 2 Dem (same)
CO: 2 Dem (same)
CT: 2 Dem (same)
DE: 2 Dem (same)
FL: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
GA: 2 GOP (same)
HI: 2 Dem (same)
ID: 2 GOP (same)
IL: 2 Dem (1D, 1R)
IN: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
IA: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (same) (GOP had more seats in leg in 2011)
KS: 2 GOP (same)
KY: 2 Dem (2R)
LA: 2 GOP* (*GOP had more seats in leg in 2011, but the 2009 candidate would’ve had a divided body voting, with about an even chance it would’ve been GOP, given some Conservative Dems jumped ship then)
ME: 2 Dem (1 R, 1 I)
MD: 2 Dem (same)
MA: 2 Dem (same)
MI: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (2D)
MN: 2 Dem (same) (both Franken & Klobuchar would’ve been elected by the 2009 and 2013 members, not the GOP 2011-12 members)
MS: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (2R)
MO: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
MT: 2 GOP (2D) (GOP held majority overall during both elections in 2008 & ‘12)
NE: 2 GOP (same)
NV: 2 Dem (1D, 1R)
NH: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (same) (GOP would’ve elected Ayotte in ‘11)
NJ: 2 Dem (same)
NM: 2 Dem (same)
NY: 2 Dem (same)
NC: 1 Dem, 1 GOP (same) (Burr would’ve been elected by leg in ‘11)
ND: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
OH: 2 GOP (1D, 1R) (GOP held numerical majority even in 2009 by virtue of 9 seat majority in Senate to 7 Dem in House, so would’ve elected both)
OK: 2 GOP (same)
OR: 2 Dem (same — though Dems had 2 seat leg majority overall in 2011, so might’ve been a surprise)
PA: 2 GOP (1D, 1R) - (GOP holds majority in 2011 and 2013)
RI: 2 Dem (same)
SC: 2 GOP (same)
SD: 2 GOP (1D, 1R)
TN: 2 GOP (same) (GOP had majority in both bodies combined despite so-called “tie” in House in 2009)
TX: 2 GOP (same)
UT: 2 GOP (same)
VT: 2 Dem (1D, 1 Soc)
VA: 2 GOP (2D) (GOP had leg majority combined in 2009)
WA: 2 Dem (same)
WV: 2 Dem (same)
WI: 2 GOP (1D, 1R) (GOP had majority in both bodies for 2011 and ‘13)
WY: 2 GOP (same)
The numbers would then shift in the GOP’s favor to 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats. Still, you and I know those Republicans would be a ghastly collection of country clubbers, big gubmint establishment RINOs. Conservatives would be few and far between (no Ted Cruz), but would be chock full of ultraleftists on the Dem side without any accountability.
I stand corrected: I didn’t know that legislators would vote en masse when the two houses yielded different results, not that the new state legislatures would vote well past November (that wasn’t the case in 1858—Douglas was elected to the Senate over Lincoln on November 2, 1858, the same day that U.S. House elections were held). It seems to me that nowadays, were the 17th Amendment to be repealed, states would need to move up their state legislative election dates, or at least the date for opening their session, so as to meet the January 3 first day of congressional session set forth by the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1933.
Excellent news. Makes me wonder why Republicans aren't serious talking about doing this instead of their pie-in-sky fantasies about repealing the 17th. Sometimes conservatives are their own worst enemy.
Pure assumption on your part. We have given you REAL world examples of the current makeup of state legislatures showing why that wouldn't happen, and you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your "state legislatures will magically revert back to the way they were in 1789" fantasy. Voters "Paying more attention" to candidates won't do a damned thing to stop court ordered gerrymanders rigged to elect one party and give big city machines total control of state government.
You choose to insult any of us who aren't from a GOP state, because you want to maintain your fantasy that most states are solidly Republican and non-corrupt even though the election results show otherwise. Fieldmarshaldj is from Tennessee, which last time I checked votes solidly Republican in both Presidential and statewide contests, and he wouldn't benefit your plan EITHER because he is likewise gerrymandered into a black urban state legislative district that blindly elects any "D" no matter what. I'm sure your solution is to have him "MOVE!" as well. Millions of Americans should all relocate so we don't have to suffer from your efforts to empower thousands of corrupt politicians.
Well, sorry, not gonna happen, and that's why you anti-17ers don't have a snowball's chance of hell of taking power away from the people and giving it to career politicians. Good day, sir!
Don’t cast stones, your state has been going south lately.
Get it, “south”. I crack me up. ;)
How about that, the same number.
But No Ted Cruz in TX, it would be Dewcrist, er Dewhurst who was endorsed by almost the entire legislature.
No Lee in Utah, it would still be Bobby Bennett. Utah is the most Republican state. Texas is the most Republican large state. They would have worse Senators under this method, think about that Central_Va.
I will say if we fail to take the Senate but keep enough legislatures that would win under that method that would be the only thing that could lead me to reconsider since electing a GOP majority is ultimately the thing I care about.
But my support still would not make repealing the 17th any more likely than me, Sarah Shahi and whipped cream being in the same room together.
Didn’t Al Gore win Rahall’s district? Dave Leip’s atlas thinks so. They appear dead their at the Presidential level now.
If we carry PA and MI aren’t we winning by enough that losing a few of the E votes from those 2 states wouldn’t matter? That must be true at least for MI which is less Republican than PA in POTUS voting (seems to have a higher ceiling for Republicans in statewide office though). If they both did it the extra votes from Michigan would have more than offset the loses from PA in your scenario of Romney carrying PA.
Certainly we would never want Florida to do it unless the state becomes less Republican.
You are a progressive, just like Hillary Clinton. Good day.
“Didn’t Al Gore win Rahall’s district? Dave Leip’s atlas thinks so. They appear dead their at the Presidential level now.”
“If we carry PA and MI aren’t we winning by enough that losing a few of the E votes from those 2 states wouldn’t matter? That must be true at least for MI which is less Republican than PA in POTUS voting (seems to have a higher ceiling for Republicans in statewide office though). If they both did it the extra votes from Michigan would have more than offset the loses from PA in your scenario of Romney carrying PA.”
“Certainly we would never want Florida to do it unless the state becomes less Republican.”
Let me put it this way: with PA, OH, MI, WI and VA switching to ME/NE and FL staying put, Romney would have needed to carry all 5 of those states (in which Romney got between 44.6% and 47.6%) plus CO (where he got 46.1%) in order to get to 270 EVs, while if FL, PA, OH, MI, WI and VA all switched to ME/NE Romney would only need to carry one of those states to get to 270. So unless we are prepared to lose the election whenever we fail to carry FL, we should include FL among the states that switch to ME/NE.
OK, here’s the trial by ordeal: how would President Bush have fared in 2000 had all 6 of those states used the ME/NE method of allocating EVs. The 2000 election certainly is the poster-child for an election that we won almost exclusively to the fact that FL was winner-takes-all (Bush barely got over the top at 271 EVs), and we cut it as close as we possibly could (Bush’s 0.01% victory margin is the smallest percentage margin in any U.S. presidential election ever, even closer than the time that Henry Clay beat Andrew Jackson in MD by 4 votes), so if Bush could have won in 2000 despite FL not being winner-takes-all then having those 6 states switch to ME/NE would seem to be an optimal strategy.
Well, I looked at the votes by CD in Leip’s site, and had FL, OH and VA (which Bush carried) used the ME/NE method it would have cost Bush 22 EVs (of course, I never would have recommended that Republicans change VA to ME/NE back then, given that the state voted for the GOP nominee in 13 of the 14 presidential elections between 1952-2004, but let’s include VA as a worse-case scenario for Bush). 271 minus 22 equals 249, so Bush would have needed to pick up at least 21 EVs in the three states that he didn’t carry—PA, MI and WI—in order to get to 270. Would you believe that Bush carried exactly 21 CDs in those three states? So even in 2000, Bush would have been elected president despite FL not being winner-takes-all, but only if the other 5 states also used the ME/NE method.
In truth, had those six states adopted the ME/NE syetem for 2000, we would have had recounts all over the place, since not only the FL statewide result (now worth only 2 EVs, not 25) but also the presidential results in VA-04 (Bush by 0.20%), FL-08 (Bush by 0.28%), MI-10 (Bush by 0.53%) and PA-21 (Bush by 0.90%) could have flipped the election to Gore; and because of the possibility of 1-6 EVs flipping to Gore it would mean that Bush would have requested recounts of statewide results in NM (Gore by 0.06%), WI (Gore by 0.22%), IA (Gore by 0.31%) and OR (Gore by 0.44%), as well as CD recounts in FL-02 (Gore by 0.97% according to Leip, but a lot of votes favoring Bush that were unallocated among North FL CDs that could have flipped the FL-02) and MI-11 (Gore by 0.36%). So it would have been even more of a custer-fluck than it was in real life.
Anyhow, had FL, PA, OH, MI, WI and VA used the ME/NE method in 2004, Bush would have won with 294 EVs instead of 286 (and losing OH would not have been fatal). And in 2008, Obama’s drubbing would have resulted in a more respectable 215 EVs for McCain, and had McCain done 1% better (and Obama 1% worse) across the board (allowing McCain to carry NC and IN and countless CDs, but not FL or OH) McCain would have reached 248 EVs.
Having FL, PA, OH, MI, WI and VA switch to the NE/ME system would place the GOP in the catbird seat in the next two presidential elections, and under almost any realistic scenario would place the party in a better position than if those states stayed winner-takes-all. The real danger to the GOP would come if only one or two of those states chose to switch, since it would reduce the number of “base EVs” with which the Republican candidate would start off, making it necessary for him or her to carry more of those swing states than if all six switched allocation methods.
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.