The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012

[jaxx]

Wed Sep. 14, 2011 2:55 AM PDT

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: there's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

<..> This could cost Obama dearly. The GOP controls both houses of the state legislature plus the governor's mansion—the so-called "redistricting trifecta"—in Pennsylvania. Congressional district maps are adjusted after every census, and the last one just finished up. That means Pennsylvania Republicans get to draw the boundaries of the state's congressional districts without any input from Democrats. Some of the early maps have leaked to the press, and Democrats expect that the Pennsylvania congressional map for the 2012 elections will have 12 safe GOP seats compared to just 6 safe Democratic seats.

<..> Nebraska and Maine already have the system the Pennsylvania GOP is pushing. But the two states' small electoral vote values mean it's actually mathematically impossible for a candidate to win the popular vote there but lose the electoral vote, says Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale University. Pennsylvania, however, is a different story: "It might be very likely to happen in [Pennsylvania], and that's what makes this something completely new under the sun," Amar says. "It's something that no previous legislature in America since the Civil War has ever had the audacity to impose."

<..> It doesn't necessarily end there. After their epic sweep of state legislative and gubernatorial races in 2010, Republicans also have total political control of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, three other big states that traditionally go Democratic and went for Obama in 2012. Implementing a Pennsylvania-style system in those three places—in Ohio, for example, Democrats anticipate controlling just 4 or 5 of the state's 16 congressional districts—could offset Obama wins in states where he has expanded the electoral map, like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or New Mexico. "If all these rust belt folks get together and make this happen that could be really dramatic," says Carolyn Fiddler, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which coordinates state political races for the Dems.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/...obama-2012

If this goes through we are about to see the biggest theft in US history.

[JuniperLea]

Cheaters never prosper... except that they do.

[Dimwitted Fool]

Can the PA legislature do this alone, or would they need to amend the state constituion?

[jaxx]

I don't know, but it does say there's no legal way for Democrats to stop them. It makes it sound as if the legislature can do it and the gov. sign it into law.

[RoyGBiv]

::sigh::

I encourage everyone who reads this to remember it clearly.

What is being proposed here is what many Democrats have been demanding for at least the last ten years. When I say "Democrats" I mean those I've encountered on political forums and blogs since the 2000 election who issued forth with a populist outpouring of justifiable rage at that election's outcome and started flying off the handle with ways to fix it so that it never happened again. One of the solutions to that mess, it was said, was to apportion electoral votes by congressional district. This, it was said, would have thrown enough electoral votes to Gore to give him the White House.

What was ignored was the full mathematical equation, the one where many of California's and New York's electoral votes went to Bush as well, thus changing everything. Add redistricting into the mix, which is what we have here, and it is, as they say, a potential game changer. And people called me a right-wing troll for pointing this out and saying it was a bad idea.

The moral of the story is to be careful what you wish for.

[jaxx]

I wonder what those people are thinking today with this coming out? It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now.

[RoyGBiv]

(09-14-2011 02:58 PM)jaxx Wrote:  I wonder what those people are thinking today with this coming out? It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now.

They're thinking they are the most awesomest wonderfullnessest smartestest people in the whole wide wonderful world and that Jane Hamsher is the godliestest goddess evah!

Or something ...

[azmouse]

How about getting rid of the electoral system all together and making the winner the one who simply gets the majority of the votes?

[Dimwitted Fool]

(09-14-2011 06:52 PM)azmouse Wrote:  How about getting rid of the electoral system all together and making the winner the one who simply gets the majority of the votes?

This sounds good in theory and is suggested every four years, but off the top of my head three problems pop up...

It would take a Constitutional amendment-- not an overwhelming problem (after all, we amended it for direct election of Senators).

For over 200 years everyone running for President has dealt with the Electoral College and knows exactly how it works. A Presidential election could be seen by the pros who actually run campaigns as too important to change so radically-- there's that whole Law of Unintended Consequences thing.

The popular vote in Presidential elections tends to be close. Imagine the incredible job of challenging votes and demanding recounts across the entire country instead of just one or two key states.

[Treestar]

How would state districts matter to a Presidential election?

[Dimwitted Fool]

(09-14-2011 07:11 PM)Treestar Wrote:  How would state districts matter to a Presidential election?

It's about changing the all-or-nothing Electoral College votes to a proportional system.

Right now, if New York has one more Democratic vote vote than the Republican, all of the electors go Democratic. Under a proportional system, the Electors are divided proportionately according to the vote, and maybe 60% of the Electors would be Democrats.

Under Pennsylvania's proposed plan it's even worse. It looks like it's not proportionate with the popular vote, but goes by district-- each district would send an Elector chosen by the dominant party, no matter how the statewide popular vote went.

[Treestar]

The problem with the proportions is that in other years, it could favor Democrats.

Sort of like reforming the filibuster. The PL wants the Dems to get rid of it. But the Dems realize there are times when they are in the minority and they use it.

[Willinois]

Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district wouldn't be a bad thing if it were done nationwide. Democrats could pick up votes in places like Georgia and Texas where they don't have a chance of winning statewide. But, it's a problem if it's only done in Democratic states and not Republican ones.

[RoyGBiv]

(09-15-2011 09:37 AM)Willinois Wrote:  Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district wouldn't be a bad thing if it were done nationwide.

And this won't happen, ever, without a constitutional amendment that completely changes the fundamental structure of our government in some significant ways.

Even if a miraculous alignment of the stars occurred and state legislatures everywhere did decide to do this as a unit, one rebellious state legislature undoing it two years later would completely upset the balance, say, for example, if in the previous election their one congressional district that goes against the grain gives that deciding electoral vote that sways an election in a direction other than what the majority in the state wanted.

As long as we have states that have any significant legal standing as a political entity, this cannot work.

I know you weren't necessarily saying otherwise. I just felt like expounding.

All that said, I would like things to work this way. My vote might actually mean something in a presidential election again. By contrast but for a similar reason, I would not like us to go to "national" elections, meaning the popular vote decides. What this means in terms of electoral politics is that major population centers receive all the attention, both in terms of campaigning and political patronage, and much of the vast middle of the country is essentially ignored.

[Willinois]

(09-15-2011 11:28 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  I know you weren't necessarily saying otherwise. I just felt like expounding.

Yeah. I agree with everything you wrote in that comment.

[Cha]

Vote Rigging Plan

Quote:Corbett’s plan may have hit a snag, however. Turns out, GOP members of Congress care more about keeping their own jobs than they do about electing a president who will eliminate Medicare:

[T]o several Republicans in marginal districts, the plan has a catch: they’re worried that Democrats will move dollars and ground troops from solid blue districts to battlegrounds in pursuit of electoral votes — and in the process, knock off the Republicans currently in the seats.

Suburban Philadelphia Reps. Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick have the most at stake, since all represent districts Democrats won in the last two presidential elections. They and the rest of the Republicans in the delegation are joining with National Republican Congressional Committee officials to respond and mobilize against the change.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09...ging-plan/

I was hoping for a miracle! If it works..Corbett's a nasty piece of scum. I didn't realize PA was under seige like the other states of Wis, Maine, Fla, Ohio, Indiana.