Skip to main content

I've written about the attempts to gerrymander the electoral college here at bluestategeorgia.

But summarized, the net effect would be much like the county unit system was in Georgia before it was struck down, of making the white vote count more than the African-American or Latino vote.

I'm not sure how seriously the GOP is willing to push this one, but if it were successful it would render the idea of "free and fair" presidential elections farcical, and in all likeliehood destabilize the electoral system as the minority population increased.  A system in which one candidate wins the popular vote with a enormous margin, yet the other candidate wins, isn't a stable system.

More to the point, these proposals are overtly racist, and given the GOP's problems with minority voters, it's amazing to me that they seem poised to do this.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They Don't Care (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newfie, xsonogall, GRLionsFan, a2nite, Red Bean

    All they want to do is win......and by any means necessary

    Give peace a chance get up and dance... Alvin Lee/Ten Years After

    by Blue Collar on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:58:08 AM PST

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      The things I don't really get are 1) why the RNC would do this when their problems among minority voters are already threatening the GOP's future, and 2) why more people aren't pointing out just how overtly racist the plan is.

      I think sometime Democrats are so afraid of being accused of "playing the race card" that when something like this comes down the pike they're afraid of pointing it out for exactly what it is.

      This isn't much different from the old "county unit" system set up in Georgia to invlidate the black vote during the Jim Crow era.

      I think many Democrats assume that it'll never happen, so there's no use spending energy on it.  I hope they're right.

      •  SATSQ time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenomanic
        1) why the RNC would do this when their problems among minority voters are already threatening the GOP's future
        Because the GOP prefers to disenfranchise minorities rather than compete for their votes--& apportioning EVs by Congressional districts in Democratic-leaning states with Republican-controlled state legislatures that have already gerrymandered the state's CDs gives them the perfect opportunity. If Democrats & independents don't rise up to stop this, the Presidency will go the way of the House--firmly in GOP control despite the wishes of a majority of voters. And holding 2-1/2 of the 3 branches of government, it won't take them long to pillage the Treasury, destroy anything approximating a social safety net, & turn "USA" into an acronym for Unchecked Slavery Again.
        I think many Democrats assume that it'll never happen, so there's no use spending energy on it.  I hope they're right.
        "Hoping against hope, like a breakfast sausage on the platter." We see how well that worked out in 2010, when the bastards took over the state legislatures & fucked the Democratic Party in the HoR until 2022 at the earliest. The sonsofbitches know exactly what they're doing, & they hope we let them sneak it by us--because if they do, it's the last time in our lifetime they'll need to be sneaky.

        Fiscal Bluff successfully called--now let's see 'em bet the limit on the Debt Limit so we can clean 'em out!

        by Uncle Cosmo on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:06:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sad to say... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xsonogall, IreGyre

    Blue Collar is right.

    They tried it once in PA and were rebuffed, however, they are gathering energy to try again - their only take-away was that they shouldn't try to usurp Democracy when people are paying attention.  

    "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

    by newfie on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:02:11 AM PST

    •  I hope people in PA are calling it for what it is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newfie

      This goes beyond just a question of party politics.  If the national electoral system is deliberately undermined to invalidate the minority vote there's a lot bigger problem with our system than which party the president's from.

      •  Supposedly voting rights are on the schedule for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        newfie

        the second term. I do hope this is right because at this point, ad with all the stupid stuff the supporters of this say on tape, gerrymandering for partisan purposes is a legal no go. I remember the Mel Watts fight in NC, when the righties were trying to cut up the state so no majority or possible majority AA folk could be elected, and it didn't work. But that is also a battle that cannot be won unless it is fought, and courts take a long time to get to this kind of stuff.

    •  They're trying it again now in Pennsylvania (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newfie
      •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

        that was what I was implying but not stating with clarity.  Now the focus is off the political moves since we do not have an election coming up.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 06:46:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Deadly serious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IreGyre
    I'm not sure how seriously the GOP is willing to push this one
    End collective bargaining rights. Throw voters off the rolls. Transvaginal probes. Limit access to polling places. Papers please laws. Stand your ground laws.

    ALEC-ruled legislatures will do anything they think they can get away with. I have no doubt about how serious they are.

    •  Not saying to ignore this ALEC ploy, but in the (0+ / 0-)

      words of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe:
      "DON'T PANIC!"

      It would be foolish of the GOP to try to have NC or Florida in their plan, they are virtual toss-ups, if anything GOP leaning.

      Ohio, I believe, could repeal such a vote (like the anti-union law) and it could well be the coup de grasse to Republics holding the statehouse.

      This would leave only Pa., Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin as realistic probables. Va. would have to be rushed through before 2013 governor race (Democrats currently ahead).

      Pa. traditionally is conservative on changes. In 2012  shot down Corbett scheme to give the Republic Party over half the state's evs. And he'll have enough problems with trying to push through State Store privatization (evangelicals hate doing so), and privatising the very profitable Lottery System (hearings by Demcratic ag, Treasure, Auditor General.

      Probable gain if Pa., Michigan, Va., and Michigan all followed ALEC could be 20+ evs. But the GOP would alienate people the way its voter suppression efforts did. Also, Democrats would be inclined to then put efforts into specific cong. districts (like Phila. suburban districts and cost some of GOP House majority), and also put resources into emerging swing states like Georgia.

      Not msaying they won't try but it's doubtful in most election results the effort would be decisive.

      "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

      by TofG on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:11:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, thanks for talking me down a bit (0+ / 0-)

        At some point even the radical fringe that runs things might do a cost benefit analysis. But I see that even 20 EVs would have been enough to change the results of three elections in the last 100 years.  

        •  Support The National Popular Vote Bill (0+ / 0-)

          It would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

          Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

          When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

          The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

          The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

          In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

          The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

          NationalPopularVote   
          Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

      •  MondayPennsylvania introduced bill to divide votes (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site