Loading

Original Opinion

The Republican Effort to Steal Electoral Votes from Blue States

By · January 28,2013
Print Friendly
| 643 Views | Politics Uncategorized

rigged_vote_virginia_280
Graphic via MSNBC

Graphic via MSNBC

When reality began to disprove Republican ideas, instead of coming up with better ideas, conservatives created their own television news network to broadcast their “side” of reality, as if reality has “sides.” When the neoconservative faction of the Republican Party wanted to invade, occupy and rebuild Iraq as a free market, oil-rich utopia, they fabricated evidence as a pretext for war. When they needed to ascertain information about terrorism, they engaged in the immoral, illegal act of torture. When voter demographics shifted and minorities and immigrants began to overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party, Republicans disenfranchised those voters with nefarious plots like voter ID laws, voter purges, fewer voting machines at targeted precinct polling places and shortened early voting calendars. When the first African American presidential candidate was poised to win his party’s nomination, the Republicans set about a campaign of disinformation and conspiracy theories in order to discredit him as an anti-white, Muslim terrorist, communist and, contradictorily, a Nazi fascist.

See a pattern? Whenever it’s faced with a serious challenge to its seemingly dwindling power, the modern Republican Party cheats.

Such is the case with the Republican Party’s newest plan to steal presidential elections.

Instead of improving their ground game or appealing to broader demographics to reinforce their dying and marginalized brand, Republican legislatures in at least four swing states are, with the support of Reince Priebus and the RNC, attempting to rewrite the rules for how each state’s electoral votes are distributed to the presidential candidates.

My friend and podcast partner, Chez Pazienza, said on our show last week that the Republicans are using the James T. Kirk’s Kobayashi Maru trick. When Captain Kirk was a cadet at Starfleet Academy, he, like all cadets, had to face the Kobayashi Maru test, which was designed to be a no-win challenge. So in order to ace the test, Kirk cheated by re-programming the simulation so he could be the only student to ever win. Likewise, when faced with a situation in which they can’t win, the Republicans aren’t necessarily changing their message or revising their positions, they’re simply re-programming the game.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the current system gives all of a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote: a winner-take-all system (not including Nebraska and Maine). In the new Republican plan, each congressional district would represent one electoral vote up for grabs. The presidential candidate who wins that district’s popular vote would win the electoral vote there. In other words, no more winner-take-all. Each state would have multiple electoral votes available. In Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Michigan, the additional two electoral votes (the “at large” electors representing the state’s two U.S. senators) would go to the candidate who wins the most congressional districts.

In the case of Pennsylvania, where legislators are considering these changes, the president would’ve only won 12 electoral votes instead of 20. In Virginia, the redistributed results would be strikingly different from the actual results: the president would’ve only received four electoral votes, while Mitt Romney would’ve effectively won the state, hauling down nine electoral votes.

Ultimately, they’re attempting eliminate the Democratic swing-state advantage, based on the 2012 map, and turn those blue states into mostly red states, even though President Obama won the popular votes in each one. They say it’s because rural voters tend to be overlooked by the campaigns and that too much focus is placed on larger towns and cities. Unsurprisingly, however, there aren’t any plans to change the electoral vote distribution in red states like Texas or Georgia where evidently the rural vote doesn’t seem to matter as much to there. Interesting how that works. Toss into the scam the Republican gerrymandering effort to redraw congressional districts so as to contain the maximum number of Republican voters, and this massive vote theft really takes shape.

Florida Republican House speaker Will Weatherford, who opposes the legislation, accurately described it this way: “To me, that’s like saying in a football game, ‘We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and they beat us in the fourth.’ I don’t think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better.”

So why didn’t they do this before the 2012 election?

Probably because they thought Mitt Romney was going to win the election without any rigging of the electoral vote count. How do we know this? Michigan state representative Pete Lund said so: “It got no traction last year. There were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take (electoral) votes from him.”

This confession from Lund is on par with Mike Turzai famously admitting that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law was designed to get Mitt Romney elected.

Once again, it’s important to emphasize that nothing like this has ever been proposed by Democratic state lawmakers, therefore don’t let any aloof contrarian hipster try to tell you that “both parties are the same.” One party is actively trying to steal presidential elections through disenfranchisement and electoral vote rigging, while the other party is trying to win election through the usual means: campaigning and fundraising. It’s also important to note here the importance of state and local politics. It’s critical that activists focus their attention on both national and state issues. Day after day, state-level Republican lawmakers are quietly passing far-right malevolent laws while Democrats engage in schadenfreude over the 2012 election results — delighting in observing the allegedly rudderless Republican Party. It’s the Kobayashi Maru in real life, and the Republicans might just get away with it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Christopher Foxx

    The solution is, of course, obvious and simple. Completely eliminate the electoral college.

    There is no rational argument for having it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

      The reason for having an electoral college is the same reason for having a senate. We are a union of states.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Steven, I’m missing your point. The Electoral College comes into play only when electing the President. It’s a national office, not a state-based one. He represents the country as a whole, not a collection of states. (That, yes, is the senate’s job.)

        And I’ve never understood the reason for having the electoral college. I’ve heard the arguments (avoid regional candidate w/o a mandate, etc.), but they don’t seem strong or legitimate to me. If the EC is such a good thing, why not use it at any other level of gov’t? What actual benefit does it provide to off set the many problems already mentioned in the comments here?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

          I don’t think you missed my point, I think you just disagree….and that’s fine. I think the smaller states should have influence greater than their percentage of population.

          • Christopher Foxx

            I think the smaller states should have influence greater than their
            percentage of population.

            OK. Why?

            The “great compromise” resulted in a Senate where each state has equal representation and a House where each state has proportional representation (more or less, the “no less than 2 reps” rule still gives smaller states a larger say than their population would really warrant).

            So why do we then have to give less populous states yet another advantage? Why should my vote count as much as twice what yours does just because of where I happen to live? Wouldn’t it be far fairer, when we’re electing a President in a national.election where state borders really aren’t an issue, to count each citizen’s vote equally?

            Person X and Y live within a mile of each other, but because there is a state border between then X’s vote should count twice as much as Y’s? How is that any different than saying an African-American’s vote should count only 3/5ths as much?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

    It’s a great idea that was proposed for the wrong reasons and opposed for the wrong reasons.

    Right now, the election takes place only in a handful of states (Fla, N.C., VA, etc.) A system like this would force the candidates to be more responsive to all the voters.

    Unfortunately, all Bob and the Republicans (and Dems for that matter) can see is whether or not this helps or hurts their “team.”

    What’s best for the country be damned.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      I almost ignored this comment, as you appear to be one of the aforementioned contrarian hipsters, but here goes. Instead of focusing on an entire swing state, this new system would shrink the focus even more — driving candidates to micro-targeted swing districts. It’s a terrible idea. The electoral college system works just fine, especially as opposed to what I assume is your alternative — plurality elections with a dozen candidates and no governing mandates for the winners.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

        As of the most recent election cycle, there really are only 90 electoral votes that are up for grabs, and the rest of the country is irrelevant. Do you honestly believe the focus of the election could get even narrower? Come on, Bob…..if this were happening in Texas you would be all for it.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Instead of focusing on an entire swing state, this new system would shrink the focus even more — driving candidates to micro-targeted swing districts.

        That kinda happens already. Even within OH, for example, certain districts pretty consistently go red, others consistently blue. So it’s really a few key districts that end up deciding the whole election.

        The electoral college system works just fine, especially as opposed to what I assume is your alternative — plurality elections with a dozen candidates and no governing mandates for the winners.

        Illusory mandates. The electoral college simply magnifies a lead of the winner to give the appearance of a large mandate. In 1976 Carter won 50.08% of the popular vote. A majority by only the slimmest of margins. He beat Ford by only 2%. Yet the electoral results show he won by over 10%. (While actually winning less than half the states.)

        “The electoral college results in a winner with a clear mandate” is just not true.

    • MrDHalen

      One congressional district with a population of 12,000 vs. one with a population of 75,000, and both getting one electoral vote is NOT a great idea.

    • Christopher Foxx

      It’s a great idea [No, it's not.] that was proposed for the wrong reasons and opposed for the wrong reasons.

      Right now, the election takes place only in a handful of states (Fla, N.C., VA, etc.) A system like this would force the candidates to be more responsive to all the voters.

      So would simply eliminating the electoral college. Even more so.

      Right now, under the system as it exists, Dems don’t campaign hard in CA and Repubs don’t have to work hard in TX because they know they’ll get majorities (and therefore all the electoral votes) in those states. FL, NC, VA, OH are the “battle ground” states because they could tip either way.

      So the candidates are more responsive to voters in OH than those in IL. Both states have similar numbers of electors (20 and 21 respectively) but IL has been blue since ’92.

      So, how to get candidates to treat voters in IL (or OK or MN) with the same level of attention that they give those in OH or FL or VA? Get rid of the electoral college.

  • West_of_the_Cascades

    one nit — the current system is not all “winner take all.” Nebraska and Maine allocate their electoral votes by congressional district already. So it is not the fact that it is somehow unprecedented that is the problem – rather, as you say, it’s how it is targeted to states where Republicans no longer think they can win a popular majority, not states like Texas.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      That’s a really, really small nit. 48 states are winner-take-all.

    • Christopher Foxx

      So it is not the fact that it is somehow unprecedented that is the problem – rather, as you say, it’s how it is targeted to states where Republicans no longer think they can win a popular majority, not states like Texas.

      So the problem isn’t that this vote would make things far less democratic, it’s that it isn’t being implemented in every state?

  • lib4

    Great article Bob… It is beyond ridiculous that the exact week the GOP meets to discuss how to “expand the party” to include more minorities they are OPENLY plotting to disenfranchise the vote of these very minorities.

Most Read Articles Today:

Copyright © 2013 BanterMediaGroup, L.L.C. All rights reserved.