Skip to main content

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus
Republicans can't win national elections anymore, having lost the popular vote in five of the last six, and with demographics shifts moving solidly against them, rather than try to better represent the will of the American electorate, they're instead going to try to break the system so that the will of the American electorate no longer matters. And it would be perfectly legal, because we choose our presidents through the Electoral College, and there are very few rules about how the electors are allocated. Make no mistake: This is a war on the very concept of democracy and republic. This is a war on the very nature of our system of governance. If it succeeds, it will tear this country apart.

Last week, while much of the country was focused on President Obama's second inauguration, or was distracted by a three-day weekend, a quiet coup by Virginia state Senate Republicans disappeared a Democratic state Senate seat. Virginia's upper house is evenly split, but with Sen. Henry L. Marsh III in Washington for the presidential inauguration, the Republicans used his absence and a party line vote to approve a new redistricting plan that eliminates a Democratic Senate seat, thus giving themselves a likely more permanent majority, beginning in 2015. But that was only the beginning of what they want to do. Virginia's Republicans have an even more cynical plan for 2016:

A Republican-backed bill that would end Virginia's winner-takes-all method of apportioning its 13 electoral votes in presidential elections cleared its first legislative hurdle Wednesday.
How would the new system work?
The bill would apportion electors by congressional district to the candidate who wins each of the state's 11 districts. The candidate who carries a majority of the districts would also win the two electors not tied to congressional districts.
And what would it have meant, last November?

(Continue reading below the fold.)

Last fall, President Barack Obama carried Virginia for the second election in a row, making him the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win Virginia in back-to-back presidential elections. For his victories, he received all 13 of the state's electoral votes.

Under (the Republican sponsor's) revision, Obama would have received only four Virginia electoral votes last year while Republican Mitt Romney would have received nine.

President Obama won Virginia by 149,298 votes, or 3.88 percent, yet under this new Republican plan he would have won less than half of Virginia's electoral votes. Whatever you want to call it, that is not democracy, it is not the will of the people, and it is antithetical to every precept by which representative government is supposed to work. Certainly, the Electoral College is anti-democratic in its very design, but this move wouldn't be a step toward leveling the power and impact of each individual voter, rather it would be a huge step away from that, empowering a deliberately chosen few at the expense of a deliberately excluded many. It's long been the Republican way on economic matters, but now they want to take it to the very basis of how we are governed. It would literally destroy the concept of representative government, in this country. And because Republicans are Republicans, it also is a blatant effort to disenfranchise minority voters. And this effort is not limited to Virginia.

Backed by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus, an effort is underway which would mirror that in Virginia, to guarantee that Republican candidates become president despite losing even by large margins of both the national popular vote and the popular votes of states whose Electoral majorities they would be effectively stealing. This is not about fixing the Electoral College system, it is about rigging it. Ian Millhiser explains:

The Republican election rigging plan targets blue states that President Obama won in 2008 and 2012, and changes the way they allocate electoral votes to give many of these votes away for free to the Republican candidate for president. Under the Republican Plan, most electoral votes will be allocated to the winner of individual Congressional districts, rather than to the winner of the state as a whole. Because the Republican Plan would be implemented in states that are heavily gerrymandered to favor Republicans, the resulting maps would all but guarantee that the Republican would win a majority of each state’s electoral votes, even if the Democratic candidate wins the state as a whole.
If Republicans want to talk about comity and open dialogue, they can begin by declaring this effort dead, in the interest of basic democratic principles. If the pundits who bleat endlessly about the need for bipartisanship have any principles at all, they will loudly and consistently declare their outrage at a plan that would render the will of the people null and void. If Third Way type centrists actually believe there is a path toward less acrimonious governance, they can begin by ending their false equivalency that lumps Democrats who have fairly won the opportunity to pursue a Democratic agenda with Republicans who never compromise, never negotiate in good faith, and now are planning to blow up the very concept of representative governance. And keep in mind that even the Republican control of the House of Representatives is due entirely to gerrymandering, which already has undermined the will of the voters, because in some states where Democratic candidates won a majority of overall Congressional votes, Republicans nevertheless won large majorities of actual Congressional seats. Nationally, Democrats won more Congressional votes than did Republicans, yet Republicans retained their majority in the House. This also was by design, and in apparently accidental moments of honesty, some Republicans have even admitted it.

In other words, a system that would allocate presidential electors by Congressional district would be twice rigged against the will of the voters, and the American system of government would be twice divorced from representative democracy. As Aaron Blake of the Washington Post explained:

The new system would allow Republicans to consistently win electoral votes (and quite possibly a majority of electoral votes) from states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia, regardless of whether they win the statewide vote.

All five of these states went for Obama in 2012. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have consistently gone blue at the presidential level, and Virginia is tilting in that direction, which would make winning any electoral votes in these states a victory for the GOP.

But it's even worse than that.
In fact, if every state awarded its electoral votes by congressional district, it’s likely that Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 presidential election despite losing the popular vote by nearly four percentage points. (According to Fix projections and data from Daily Kos Elections, Romney won at least 227 congressional districts and 24 states, giving him 275 electoral votes — more than the 270 he needed.)

In addition, if just the five states mentioned above changed their systems, Obama’s 126-electoral-vote win would have shrunk to a 34-vote win — close enough where a different result in Florida (which Obama won by less than one point) would have tipped the 2012 race in Romney’s favor.

Think about that. Think about what it would do to this country, and what it would tell the rest of the world. President Obama won the national popular vote by close to 5 million votes, but if the Republican plan had been in effect Mitt Romney might now be president. No matter your political allegiance, if you believe in such basic concepts as democracy and representative government and will of the people and fair elections, such a plan should leave you not just angry but infuriated and aghast. Unless this effort is buried, it should be the issue and the the story, because nothing even approaches it in importance. Every political issue is by it trumped, because it would trump every issue, and in countless cases countermand what the people of this nation want done on the issues.

Unless this effort is buried, all elected Democrats must understand and act on the reality that Republicans with this effort are proving they are neither responsible nor responsive, and that their every pretense of patriotism and honor is nothing but a lie. The danger of this effort cannot be overstated. And if it is allowed to happen, it is a certainty that if on election night 2016 a Republican has by these rigged rules stolen the presidency despite losing the popular vote by millions, the traditional media will shrug it off, just as they shrugged off the later proved stolen election of 2000. But this would be so blatant that even the traditional media's best efforts wouldn't be able to obfuscate it. It would tear the country apart, as every person of principle and conscience awakened to the reality that the dreams and ideals of democracy and republic were dead. But it would be too late. It would be legal, even though the rule of law itself no longer would have any basis in popular consensus.

The time to speak out is now. This can only succeed if done quietly, in the shadows. Already, Florida Republican leaders are backing away from the idea, and the more Americans hear about it, the more they will be outraged by it. Regardless of partisan affiliations, you can be sure that the vast majority of Americans still has a basic sense of fairness, and a respect for the ideals by which this country is supposed to work. The time for Democratic leaders to speak out is now. The time for Republican leaders to be forced to take public stands for or against representative government is now. All Americans of conscience and integrity must stand up and be heard, or anything good and just about the American system of government will fall and be silenced.

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

    •  multiply the outrage in this diary (23+ / 0-)

      by a few million and its even more accurate in its estimation of what the GOP's cavalier approach to government is doing to democracy.

      Our media has been asleep to these kinds of initiatives, and this one might have gone further had the voices here at Kos and at other liberal sites not made a stink as fast as possible.

      Our vigilance and our community effort, keeping up the chatter, bringing greater light to the struggle and teaching our friends, bringing along our communities, we're working our way through this together.

      And Kos is a great place to check the pulse of it all...

      "There is power in speaking up. We know the face of unfettered gun proliferation. Now it’s time to see more faces of regulation and restraint." - Charles Blow

      by Beastly Fool on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:55:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  makes me wonder if msm has been asleep (7+ / 0-)

        or complicit.

        "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

        by AnnieR on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:01:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, if we're to be objective, (10+ / 0-)

        through the entire life of the internet, we've been losing ground. And the trend is "more loss."

        I was at Woodstock and it felt great to be around so many like-minded people. Why, everyone there was even more connected than people on twitter!

        But it didn't mean shit about changing politics: just style.

        Same with the internet. We've won some battles; we keep losing the war. Media isn't asleep, it's the conscious agitation/propaganda tool of the 1% and the rightists. And it's effective. Fox is the most egregious, but the rest work to keep the citizenry uninformed, divided, and distracted also.

        Until we deal with that monopoly on the public narratives head-on, we'll keep losing. Howl in unison with our invisible web-friends all we want.


        Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

        by Jim P on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:16:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How did you hear about this plan? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        abarefootboy, Jeff Y

        I heard about it through the media, Rachel on MSNBC to be exact.  When she first reported the story, back in December, it was speculation.  It has become more than speculation since the legislators actually began attempting to implement the plan, and as soon as that happened it hit the wider media.

        This plan was held very close to the chest by Republicans, who expected Romney to win the election.  I doubt they spoke about it outside their caucuses until it became very clear to Mr. Priebus that the plan was the easiest way to insure Republican success in future elections.  The only medium with a chance to air anything factual on the subject would have been Fox, and they wouldn't publicize a secret Republican plan to win elections.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:28:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I want to add something to this travesty (8+ / 0-)

        that hasn't gotten quite as much attention as I would like.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/...

        Jordan Gehrke, a D.C.-based strategist who's worked on presidential and Senate campaigns, is teaming up with Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio Republican secretary of state, to raise money for an effort to propose similar electoral reforms in states across the country, he told me this week.

        Gehrke and Blackwell have been talking to major donors and plan to send a fundraising email to grassroots conservatives early next week. The money would go toward promoting similar plans to apportion electoral votes by congressional district in states across the country, potentially even hiring lobbyists in state capitals.

        Name "Ken Blackwell" mean anything to you?

        This guy should be in prison, not running around promoting NEW ways to steal presidential elections.

        If you recall, it was former Ohio secretary of voter suppress ... I mean STATE ... Ken Blackwell who was overseeing Ohio's chaotic and rigged 2004 presidential election, when voters in urban areas and on select liberal college campuses had to wait in lines up to 12 hours long to vote. And all of the factors that caused that to happen were under Blackwell's jurisdiction.

        And after the election, this asshole put out a press release smirking that "the election ran smoothly. Everyone who wanted to vote got to vote."

        He should have been struck by lightning for that brazen lie. We will never know how many people were unable to cast their votes for John Kerry due to being unable to wait for four or five or ten hours. It was certainly more then one. It may even have been enough to tilt the election the other way.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:02:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This effort is off to a shaky start..... (13+ / 0-)

      It has, from the get go, been given an unusual amount of attention from the usually pliant, complacent, regurgitators of spoon fed talking points, media.

       And it is attention that has to give concern for the Governors that would have to sign it into law. Many are up for reelection in '14. And it's safe to say that none of them are riding high in the sort of numbers that they need to keep their jobs ( or in Ultra Sounds case, maintaining the illusion that there is a political future of higher office )  so most may have serious doubts about going with this one...except maybe Scott Walker-- he and his buddy Reince seem to be all over this like a fat kid on a smartie. But then, they aren't exactly smarties themselves.

       Just another reason to keep a lazer like focus on the doin's that transpire when an unruly, defeated mob of directionless Republicans start getting ideas. Given that it's been a very long time since any of their ideas -- beyond having a modicum of  any benifit for most people -- wasn't based on some sort of deceptive, dishonest scheme designed to slant anything and everything to their bankrollers.  ( GOPers quitting to become lobbiests!?! Heck the whole damn party is a lobby........)

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:39:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Simply disgusting (77+ / 0-)

    Felony disenfranchisement of millions, particularly in Florida where it's 10% of the eligible electorate and 23% of eligible blacks.

    Maine Republicans abolishing election-day registration in 2011, Wisconsin and Montana Republicans entertaining the same idea.

    Dozens of voter ID laws that artificially restrict access by not providing free, timely, and convenient IDs to everyone who is entitled to them.

    Early voting cut in numerous states (Ohio, Florida, etc).

    Massive gerrymandering that steals not only state legislatures (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc) but also the House of Representatives and potentially the Presidency if the already undemocratic Electoral College is switched to congressional district vote distribution, of course starting in blue/swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.

    And against the backdrop of all this rigging, what have Democrats done? Cede everything with inaction.

    Where are the bills in Democratic supermajority/trifecta control states implementing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and expanding voting rights not just with same-day registration but with automatic registration so everyone eligible, especially the tens of millions not registered, is able to vote and the President is elected by the people and not by arbitrary governments/districts or land-mass?

    Where is the party that recognizes that "states rights" applied to voting is just an excuse to allow oppression and therefore federalizes the standard rules so elections are uniform and fair?

    Where is the party that says four years of filibustering obstruction in the plutocratic chamber is enough and reforms it along a party-line, partisan vote instead of authorizing two more years of the minority veto status quo? Things like impartial redistricting or the Voter Empowerment Act won't make it out of Congress (even if Republicans lose the House) anytime soon as long as we have a 60 supermajority vote threshold in the Senate.

    Where is the outrage? Tempered by bribery and corruption, by "campaign contributions" from wealthy corporations middle-class job-creators, by privileged and arrogant out-of-touch millionaires circle jerking in "the world's greatest deliberative body".

    Our elections and government policy is a game ruled by cash. The people up top with the power and control have to be dragged kicking and screaming by us plebs to do the right thing. It makes me fucking sick.

    •  Don't be sick, be ready to shout (31+ / 0-)

      At first, I was really worried about voter suppression efforts.  I knew how effective it could be and how many Obama supporters might have been shut out of voting.  Many were.

      But many, many more who might not have voted otherwise saw what the GOP was doing and made extraordinary efforts to vote.  Once you have a right that people try to take from you, watch out.  They will fight like crazy to keep it.

      I think the same may be true with this electoral college thing.  It is so outrageous, so villainous, so naked, that the same effect may occur.  

      However, the important thing is for us to 1) fight it; 2) shout about it from the rooftops if the Republicans are successful in passing the laws.  Make them pay.

      •  The poor in many countries do not revolt..... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xenothaulus, Jeff Y, a2nite

        However revolts, whether political or people in the streets occur when the people's expectations are not met by the government.

        If they see the system is fixed and the ballot box is just a box full of paper or electronic impulses they may revolt.

        The GOP sees the writing on the wall.  They cannot win without legal tricks.  Like a caged animal they have only their fear to motivate them.

        Psst!!!......Mittens you are more of a poor loser than I thought.

        by wbishop3 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:28:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Also add in, in Michigan for starters, systematic (36+ / 0-)

      disenfrancisement of all local voters in basically any town the State Republicans select in order that they may be run dictatorially by Republicans who void contracts and sell off city assets and such and bar the action of any local elected official of the jurisdiction, until they are ready if ever to surrender that power. IIRC, a substantial number of communities with large numbers of minorities have been selected for this treatment.  So in Mich,  the gerrymandering counts as more dangerous because there are fewer alternatives for residents' voices to be heard. The claim is that all of the towns are insolvent, but the acts of the Republican governor and legislature are no small part of any such condition.

      •  Why has the Constitutionality of this been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sarenth

        challenged in Federal Court?

        Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

        by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:55:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oops...add "NOT" been challenged in Federal court? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coral, walkshills

          Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

          by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:56:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because it isn't un-Constitutional (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sarenth

            The Constitution leave it up to states to determine their own rules for governing and elections, with the exception, I believe, of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which cover only federal elections.

            Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

            by coral on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:58:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If there is an intent to deny civil rights (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              abarefootboy

              to a portion of the population, doesn't it violate the voting rights act and the civil rights act? Perhaps it even violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The larger goal though is to make Federal elections a Federal responsibility and get the States out of drawing up Federal districts. Doubling the size of the House would also make gerrymandering much harder to accomplish.

              For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

              by Anne Elk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:10:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I question the constitutionality of taking over (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Zinman

              elected local government bodies and implementing rule by a "manager."

              Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

              by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:25:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, I think all states should award (0+ / 0-)

                by congressional district.  I have no problem with this in principle.  The reality is that there are a lot of Democrats in Georgia who's votes are never heard, just as there are a lot of Republicans in MI, PA, NJ, and CA who's votes are not heard either.

                This is actually more democratic than winner take all.  If we aren't going to do it by national popular vote, which actually is unconstitutional, then this is a better system than we have now.  If we're honest, then we have to admit that the current system is rigged for Democrats.  There is no reason that you should win a state like Florida by less than 1% and win the EV total by 27-0.

                If you look at the map of the US by congressional district, republicans would argue that it's unfair for a few large cities along both coasts to be able to dictate elections and resultant policy to the rest of the entire geography of the nation.

                LIke it or not, this representative republic was never intended to be about direct democracy, or a bare majority's unfettered will over everybody else.

                •  So, it's unfair for majorities to win in the USA (5+ / 0-)

                  So, "it's unfair for a few large cities along both coasts to be able to dictate elections and resultant policy to the rest of the entire geography of the nation"? Your point seems to be that votes of a disproportionately inferior number of voters from sparcely poplulated areas should count more than the votes of people who live in large cities. That is indeed the strategy and talking points of the Rethugs, because that is how they intend to cheat democracy.

                  Eradicate magical thinking

                  by Zinman on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:24:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly. Talk about being unfairly represented. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RightHeaded

                    CA has more people then all the states west of the Mississippi except Texas yet they only have the same number of senators.  (heck they have small cities in CA bigger then Wyoming. So those low population states now want to elevate themselves in thier efforts to impose thier religious beliefs, thier belief that the gun is the answer, thier racism, thier unrelenting rejection of any inconvenient science, thier form of morality which seems based on power struggles more then decency, thier lack of understanding of anything more complex then racing ... now want to impose thier beliefs on all the rest of the country through BS.

                    But as I have been told repeatedly if they do this, that it is legal. So we could end up with presidents who lose by millions of votes packing a supreme court to give them new laws to force the rest of us to continue supporting thier failing states while stripping many of us of rights... If this happens we truly have lost our democracy to the jingoist flag waving faux patriots, the "real" americans like the rest of us are just some pretend humans.  Geesh the AHs don't even need a SCOTUS to give the presidency to a loser who goes onto to destroy us in the name of making the rich richer.  

                    It is legal and so what the hell can we do with a congress owned by republicans or regressives determined to diminish our country to third world status or maybe a country of warlords. You will have a lot of people who in thier apathy will accept that judgnment unless we can come up with an answer. We need answers to counter this or we will end up like Michigan as a country with the pigs aided and abetted by the self-righteous claimants of a morality that only exists in thier minds (the little they actually use for anything but taking more then they need).

                     

                    Fear is the Mind Killer...

                    by boophus on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 05:16:27 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The problem with the congressional district method (0+ / 0-)

                  is gerrymandering, because entire groups vanish when their districts are so arranged that either they are never a majority in any one district, or they are all jammed into one district when they could form a voice to be reckoned with in several if that were not done. Either way, the voice of a third of some states vanishes entirely, and the congressional district system makes those voices equally unheard in the Presidential election. That is how Jim Crow II works, now that minorities cannot simply be forbidden to vote.

                  This is one way the parliamentary system works better since the seats are allocated among parties based on their percentage of the vote, so every constituency which meets the baseline number for one seat, gets a place at the table. In the recent Israeli election, which uses this method, the minimum for a seat was 2%, and every party which got more than that got at least one seat.

                  As to the fairness to large cities, those cities have voters, and the proper question is fairness to those voters, since voters are by definition citizens who must be treated equally. Is it equally fair or unfair to you that rural areas control everything, where there are few voters per square mile?

                •  Ridiculous! (0+ / 0-)

                  The only equitable method of distributing votes, if you don't want to use winner-take-all, is to distribute based on the percentage of the popular vote--i.e., a state has 30 EV, you win 60% of the votes in the state, you get 18 EV. Anything else makes some people's votes count more than others and plays right into the hands of gerrymanders.

            •  There may be recourse in the courts. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coral

              Lots of people are assuming there is no recourse, but the decisions I cite here are interesting. All are the "one man, one vote" precedents and just could be a lever. Where the clear intent is to give rural voters clear advantage over urban voters the courts just might be a firewall.

              At least in Virginia that does not seem now necessary. Maybe the potential anger of the "urban 800 pound gorilla" in statewide office elections, where statewide popular vote governs, was in the back of the mind of some of the Republicans that may oppose the measure. In any state in which that "urban" vote can swing a popular vote in-state the potential of an intense campaign issue being effective disenfranchisement is a powerful threat to anyone with state office ambitions.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:48:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  We are not plebs, nor are they patricians... (6+ / 0-)

      stick with it, we'll win.  Intelligence will always defeat stupidity...no matter how long it takes.  So don't be sick, be strong.  Together we can fight this antisocial pathology.  

      •  The arc of history may be on our side, (5+ / 0-)

        but I hope to still be alive by the time that happens.  If this electoral plan is effected by Republicans, it could be decades before the mess is cleaned up.

        Wouldn't it be easier to pass a constitutional amendment to use the popular vote to decide presidential elections?  I know the small states will scream bloody murder, but half the country will be screaming bloody murder if this Republican plan is implemented.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:45:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why is this kind of scheme not prohibited (9+ / 0-)

      under the aegis of Baker v. Carr ("one man, one vote")?

      I'm puzzled that the Democrats win a million more votes nationwide in House races, but they are in the minority by so many seats.  Then, in multiple states, urban votes must be worth substantially less than rural votes.  

      Isn't that constitutionally impermissible?  

      (BTW, this question is sincere, not snark.  I authentically don't get it.)

      For what is the crime of the robbing of a bank compared to the crime of the founding of a bank? - Brecht

      by Joe Hill PDX on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:56:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The RICO act (9+ / 0-)

        lists fraud, racketeering and money laundering specifically as illegal acts.

        Various parties within the GOP have run stealth campaigns where voting right's issues, for instance were never mentioned, then once in office, they eviscerated existing rules. Likewise women's rights. - fraud

        ALEC has written legislation which is essentially conspiratorial and designed to undermine existing legal structures. - racketeering

        Both activities have been financed by organizations that are supposedly non-profit, but have represented candidates, corporate interests, even individual donors to campaigns.  - money laundering

        can anyone say special prosecutor?

        "There is power in speaking up. We know the face of unfettered gun proliferation. Now it’s time to see more faces of regulation and restraint." - Charles Blow

        by Beastly Fool on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:18:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It takes an act of congress to assign (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deejay Lyn, abarefootboy

          a special prosecutor.  I doubt a House controlled by representatives of favorably gerrymandered districts is going to pass any such act.  I don't know whether the DOJ could even approach the issue, and even if it's possible I certainly wouldn't count on Holder to do it.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:52:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Registered Voters Vs Population (4+ / 0-)

        Voting districts are based upon the number of people as determined by the National Census. This is a very different number then the number of Eligible Voters in a given area much less actual Registered Voters. This means that while all Districts have the same number of warm human bodies, the number of people who actually vote may vary widely. For example I live in OC, CA and our Democratic candidates only garner about a third of the vote but always have way more actual votes then the Democratic winner in the neighboring  District. This is because very few people who live in that District are citizens or if they are choose to vote, while a large percentage of people in my District are citizens who vote. The result is that a very large number of Democrats are lost in an even bigger see of Red and yes it sucks that in effect my vote counts less then those in other Districts with less Registered Voters.

        If we want to have fairer elections we really should amend the Constitution to have Districts drawn based upon an equal number of eligible voters with actual rules about making sure the percentage of people elected from a party tracks closely with the total number of votes that party gets.

  •  it will be stopped (19+ / 0-)

    they can't explain why a mouth-breather in bumfuck, tn. should have his vote count more than say, mayor bloomberg

    we have not had much of a defense of "one man, one vote" (y'know, the whole democracy thing) as it relates to the rancid electoral college, but this little scheme is going too far for all but the most priebus of republicans

    Howard Fineman needs to have a chat with Chris Cilizza about Grecian Formula and its effects on punditry

    by memofromturner on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:05:19 PM PST

    •  Dems' message: (5+ / 0-)

      If you think it's okay that the dealer, in the middle of a poker game, orders fours and sixes are wild, and the dealer has two foursome a six showing, then the GOPer plan is right for you.

    •  Keep shouting! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zinman, a2nite

      Attention has made them back off. Ohio's secretary of voter suppress ... I mean STATE ... Jon Husted mentioned this at a post-election wrap-up forum back in early November, sort of in passing, probably not intending it to be noticed. It was picked up by an Ohio progressive political blog, and then got national attention. Husted quickly said that he wasn't actually PROPOSING this, just mentioning it as one of the ideas floating around. It hasn't progressed since then. Every time it rears its ugly head, it must be shouted down like this.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:06:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the Banana Republic Party (38+ / 0-)
    Unless this effort is buried, all elected Democrats must understand and act on the reality that Republicans with this effort are proving they are neither responsible nor responsive, and that their every pretense of patriotism and honor is nothing but a lie.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

    by annieli on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:06:24 PM PST

  •  The VA schemes have all collapsed (44+ / 0-)

    Not only is the EV scheme dead in the water (McDonnell has come out against it as have 2 Republican Senators on the committee, meaning it's going nowhere), the underhanded redistricting scheme the Senate passed on Inauguration Day is also going nowhere. McDonnell and Bolling both disapprove of it and the state House is backing away from it, because they realize that if they pass such a thing, the Democrats will ensure nothing gets out of the evenly divided Senate the rest of the year. As expected, exposure to daylight and the whole plot collapses.

    By the way, nice photo of Chairman Scrabble Hand. He looks like a Bond villain rallying his minions for the newest S.P.E.C.T.R.E. plot. Right before Blofeld berates him for last November's failures and sends him on a one-way trip to the nearest shark tank.

    •  florida, too (31+ / 0-)

      but the rust belt republicans are still considering it, and even virginia and florida may be just a few gop votes from pushing or it. this idea will continue to lurk in the shadows.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:10:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, they're backing off on it too (21+ / 0-)

        The Republican party chairman in PA says he's opposed to it; no one in OH except our old friend Jon Hulsted seems eager about it and in WI Walker is only saying it's "interesting," but seems to have no real passion for it. If he backed off like a scalded cat over his proposal to end same-day voter registration in WI, he won't touch this. He's too concerned with his 2016 reelection chances and appearing "moderate."

        The only real concern (as Rachel Maddow pointed out on Friday) is MI. I don't think it would pass there either (they wouldn't have the votes for it much as they don't have the votes for the right to work bill now, which is why they rammed it through the lame duck session), but I think they might be the only one to push it seriously. Especially because they (a) clearly don't care about the wishes of their state's populace and (b) I'm convinced Snyder isn't going to run again and therefore doesn't care about continuing to destroy his reelection chances, so he's capable of anything.

      •  makes no sense for Florida (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaBlue

        Republicans always have a good chance of carrying Florida, same with Ohio. Even Va is no sure  thing with no Obama on the ticket.
        The American people would never stand for this. We need the same rules in every state and going by congressional district would probably favor whoever holds the house unless it's a wave election.

        •  That's a big reason why they're nixing it in FL (9+ / 0-)

          Essentially, putting forward this scheme is admitting "We can't win this state, so we need to cheat." The GOP isn't going to admit that in Florida, the ultimate battleground state.

          •  That's a very good one-line summation... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deejay Lyn, a2nite

            Where are R's willing to admit "We can't win this state"?  Not Florida, and probably not Virginia or Ohio either, if they have any sense.  (Historically, splitting the EV in any of those states likely would have cost them the 2000 election.)

            Pennsylvania or Michigan, maybe.

        •  republicans have lost florida (15+ / 0-)

          4 of the last 6 elections, had to steal one of the two they did win, and have demographic trends moving against them.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:00:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sister Havana
          We need the same rules in every state and going by congressional district would probably favor whoever holds the house unless it's a wave election.
          The whole point is that each state can make its own rules for apportioning its electors. It would be unconstitutional and plainly against the spirit of the thing as well to tell states what to do.

          How a state chooses its electors is an internal affair. While I don't like this Republican plan either, I see no reason to deviate from this principle.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:20:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not "the whole point." (4+ / 0-)

            The whole point is a system that does not allow a candidate to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 4%.  This far super cedes state rights to apportion their electors.

            Since the beginning of the electoral college, neither party has ever attempted this, as far as I know. There's a reason for that. The republicans risk major blow back with this, further erosion of their brand, mid term losses and imo, not a great chance of success in any state.

            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

            by StellaRay on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:37:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep

              There is no reason why a popular vote winner is any more legitimate than an electoral vote winner. The principle is that the states are supposed to select electors, not individual voters. The fact that each state does it this way is more of an accident of history than anything else (and some, like Maine and Nebraska, don't).

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:51:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  why would a popular vote winner not be any more (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VirginiaBlue, Sarenth

                legitimate than an electoral vote winner?

                it seems that the winner of the popular vote would be the only legitimate winner.  the electoral college is an anachronism that outlived its original purpose long, long ago.

                most of the world's largest democracies award the election to the winner of the popular vote.  it's time we did, too.

                •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                  why would a popular vote winner not be any more legitimate than an electoral vote winner?
                  Uh, because one of them is the federalized system we have and the other is something else.
                  it seems that the winner of the popular vote would be the only legitimate winner.  the electoral college is an anachronism that outlived its original purpose long, long ago.
                  If you don't believe in the principle of federalism that our nation is founded upon, sure.
                  most of the world's largest democracies award the election to the winner of the popular vote.  it's time we did, too.
                  In Britain, the Prime Minister isn't even elected, (s)he is selected by the House of Commons.

                  Same thing in Canada (slightly different system).

                  In both cases, not one individual vote is cast for the titular head of state. The assumption is that you do that when you elect your local representative.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:18:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  How unsurprising (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Boreal Ecologist, jts327

                that Sparhawk would be all for dismantling democracy.
                Troll.

                +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

                by cybersaur on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:41:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What democracy (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nextstep, Mikey

                  Many other "democratic" systems that I'm sure you approve of do not allow even a single individual citizen to vote for the head of state (Canada, Britain, and more).

                  The head of state is selected by the democratically-elected legislatures in these cases.

                  These systems seem to get along just fine without being accused of being anti-democratic despotisms (Britain could do with a few less closed circuit television cameras, but I digress...).

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:22:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your ingorance is showing. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybersaur
                    Many other "democratic" systems that I'm sure you approve of do not allow even a single individual citizen to vote for the head of state (Canada, Britain, and more).
                    The bolded head of state is not elected at all. She is currently the hereditary Monarch known as Queen Elizabeth II. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before making such statements.

                    There are also a series of court cases that could blast these CD EC schemes. I haven't had time to read every word, but each is a precedent in "one man, one vote" decisions as applied to state imbalances and rather specifically to state efforts to weight the scales to rural voters.

                    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                    by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:09:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, yours is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      nextstep

                      The head of state in Britain in most ways that matter is the prime minister. The Queen or King has little real power, just a figurehead.

                      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                      by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:24:19 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wrong Answer. The parlimentary system separates (0+ / 0-)

                        "head of state" from political. One advantage is the HOS, the sort of embodied flag, is focus of that national pride stuff while the legislative power, the prime minister, can be booted without some of the trauma we and others with both features wrapped in one body seem to face.

                        That is the practical reality and the HOS for such countries is most definitely the monarch or elected official serving the function of HOS. By the way, on visiting, those prime ministers do not get the 21 gun salutes their HOS would, so you are just making excuses.

                        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                        by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:31:42 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          nextstep

                          And in all cases, neither the monarch nor the Prime Minister is directly elected, which is what we are discussing here. Why you continue to muddy the waters with trivial irrelevancies is a mystery to me.

                          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                          by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:02:52 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Because you mixed apples and oranges, with an (0+ / 0-)

                            error, at the start?

                            The particular problem of mixing both Head of State and elected political leader in systems such as ours is a recognized issue if you do your research. The pro is that our system, with a fixed term for both, provides stability. The con is that we are often stuck with either a completely ineffective or sometimes a corrupt political head for that reason and the reluctance of much of our population to see the embodiment of the State subject of "regicide." Yes, that is a foolish view, but a known factor in our extreme reluctance to use the impeachment process when rather well deserved.

                            Enough. If you don't want to do some self education on the issues of the systems, the pros and cons and the factual blunder of including Britain in the first instance that is your problem.

                            The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                            by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:07:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Here's what's "supposed" to happen: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ranton

                One person, one vote. You talk about states like they're people too.  To hell with the individual voter, huh?

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:55:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, what is "supposed" to happen is the state (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nextstep

                  legislature is supposed to select the electors.  The fact that they are chosen by popular vote is just a quirk of history, nothing more.

                  You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:18:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, but... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk

                    This country was founded on the idea that it is a republic made up of states.  No other nation (to my knowledge) puts stars or markers on their flag for each province in their country.  The individual states (and their "rights", though that term was later used as code) were considered to be sacrosanct by the founders.

                    The reality is that voters in California and Mississippi have different values and different ways of life, and the entire structure of the nation was setup so that neither could tell the other how to live.

          •  Just another hold-over from those champions of (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VirginiaBlue, ranton, Val

            states' rights -- the slaveholders.  Lincoln was right -- God's going to keep making us pay for that sin forever.

          •  Exactly, if a state wants to declare it's electors (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sister Havana

            automatically go to the Republican candidate for 2016 then they can and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:17:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is, in fact, true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sister Havana

              As long as the state itself maintains a republican (small r) form of government and the state legislature is duly elected by the people, it absolutely has the power to do that. And people in that state have the power to respond by the ballot box to remove the legislators in question.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:38:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or how about declaring that not only will the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Zinman

                state's electoral votes go for the Republican candidate but that it is permanent and may not be changed in the future (and that any state resident has standing to challenge any attempt to change it in the future)?

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:39:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  How would that happen exactly (0+ / 0-)

                  The state is selecting electors, specific human beings who are part of the electoral college. Additionally, per the Constitution, Congress has the power to establish the time of choosing of the electors. In your example, a state would be attempting to choose the electors at a time not of Congress's choosing (illegal).

                  So a state could not today declare that the 2016 electors will be particular people, but it could pass a law stating that there would be no statewide election and that the 2016 state legislature would be responsible for choosing the electors.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:23:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Simply declare that say, Rush Limbaugh or someone (0+ / 0-)

                    like that gets to decide the electors and that procedure can never be changed as long as he is still alive and physically able to do so.  Though I have no idea whether the whole "and it can't be changed by a future legislature" part would hold up in court.

                    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                    by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:50:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •   (0+ / 0-)

            One man-one vote would negate most of these schemes. Congress actually can tell the states how to run elections. See the 15th AMDT. http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

            Section 2.
            The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            Plus

            Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

            Again congress can enforce these laws through appropiate legislation..

            Plus Womens suffrage 19th amdt.

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

            Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            Arguably the states modified their rights to determine qualifications of electors and districts and ceded many of these powers to congress with these  constitutional amdts.

            The one man-one vote decisions also come into play. (Admittedly stare decisis in the Roberts court has all the staying power of toilet paper in water but the textual spirit of the constitution still favors at least some congressional authority to call foul)

        •  I think you missed an important point. (6+ / 0-)
          The American people would never stand for this.
          The aim of this, and everything the GOP has been doing w/r/t election laws (and everything their pals the bazillionaires and the NRA leaders are doing) is to make the American people irrelevant.

          Of course the American people won't stand for this -- that's why they need to be disenfranchised.

          "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

          by NWTerriD on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:59:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  do we need ankle monitors for the GOP? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnieR, Val

        can they be trusted at all?

        Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?

        by AntonBursch on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:52:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ohio too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zinman

        Our secretary of voter suppress ... I mean STATE ... Jon Husted scrambled away so fast he got bruises when he got attention for mentioning it back in November. It won't happen in Ohio if we keep drawing attention to it. Progressing the idea at all would probably result in a Democratic clean sweep of all statewide offices next year, which may happen anyway. We've got some terrific candidates! The two remaining considering the gubernatorial race are both great; I would be hard-pressed to choose between them. We have an outstanding person stepping up for attorney general and a fire-breathing dynamo looking at SOS, someone who has made fighting voter suppression her signature issue.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:10:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rinsy might have kept his job..... (0+ / 0-)

      But after his brilliant showing in Nov he may not be on as terra firma as he would like to believe. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some plotting going on....after all, these people can't help themselves....Obama has turned out to be a little indigestable for their tender stomachs.....cannibilism is so easy....and full of tasty empty calories......

       Have to think they are sharpening the knives and wondering what roast Priebus tastes like.. ( stringy and unpalatable is my guess...)

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:50:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In FitzWalkerstan the ReTHUGs are true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sister Havana, Zinman

      Corporatist lapdogs...most ReTHUG legislators are ALEC members.  They will try to pass it here.  I actually look forward to the fight...it will serve to further unmask them for what they really are.  

      Wisconsin ReTHUGs, while shutting out not only Democratic legislators but also the public, allowed ALEC to be highly involved in 2010 ReTHUG redistricting.  ALEC "legislators" were advised on redistricting as they developed maps under a veil of secrecy.

      The WISGOP and their "minders" have seen the future without protecting gerrymandering.  Without the illegal gerrymandering that they proceeded to "legalize," Wisconsin ReTHUGs would not have a super majority now.  In 2012, Democrats got more than 52% of the vote in the state's 99 Assembly districts, but won just 39% of the seats.

       

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:53:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They also probably know this would become a (0+ / 0-)

      campaign issue in NOVA, potentially an anger issue driving turnout, that could doom any Republican's statewide office ambitions. NOVA and Hampton, both "urban" with NOVA being very diverse, but not heavily African American, and Hampton being both urban and with a large AA population can "turn Virginia blue" if they turn out.

      A pissed off NOVA and Hampton as a result of these schemes—and NOVA is a bit pissed at being neglected while its money gets shipped "southside" and its transportation issues are not addressed—would doom any Republican's dream of statewide office.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:56:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They do not believe (20+ / 0-)

    in one person, one vote.

    It is simply amazing the GOP has embraced this.

    I think the Florida Republicans are backing away because it would hut the GOP - and for no other reason.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:09:15 PM PST

  •  Disagree with one sentence (61+ / 0-)

    This is not a blatant effort to disenfranchise minority voters.

    It is a blatant effort to disenfranchise majority voters.

    A majority of Virginians voted for Obama twice, but over 2/3 of the state's electoral votes would go to the guy who got the minority of the votes?  Romney loses by 5 million votes, but Romney becomes president?  Sound like disenfranchisement of the majority to me.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:09:27 PM PST

  •  Which is exactly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, Laurence Lewis, Eric Nelson

    what the GOP want to do, I fear.

    Catch St. Louis' progressive talk show, The Murdock Report, every Tuesday @ noon! Stream or download it: www.wgnu920am.com I do the twit thing too @SmokinJoesTruth

    by Da Rat Bastid on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:09:58 PM PST

  •  Hey now Reince what where you point those things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, a2nite

    they might be loaded and you'll end up shooting yourself

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:11:04 PM PST

  •  And the administration takes freedom away in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan, Sparhawk, Australian2

    little doses when we're not looking.

    Although forced to back down on SOPA, the administration quietly removed some of our rights to use our own property yesterday when it removed the DMCA exception for unlocking cell phones.

    Hooray Obama administration.  We certainly don't want to impinge on the cell phone companies' ability to restrict the use of our own property in any way, especially when it supports their ability to sell us the same service twice (as in 4G + hot spot) rather than give us full access to what we've already paid for.

    Honestly, I don't understand why cell phone unlocking is a copyright issue anyway.  It doesn't protect intellectual property. It protects cell company profits at the extent of individual property rights.

    Shame, shame, shame on you Obama administratino.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:12:46 PM PST

  •  I can't understand why this isn't making the news. (15+ / 0-)

    You have the leader of the Republican National Committee actively encouraging a large handful of states to have a complete disdain for the will of their voters. If these 6 states (VA, FL, OH, PA, WI, MI) rigged their EV system by Congressional District, we would have President Romney today.

     Furthermore, if you do the math at how much a less an urban voter packed into a 90% Democratic district vote is worth when compared to the EVs allocated to the democratic party, it's extremely close to 3/5... it'd be tragic beyond words.

     Does the average American voter even know this? They need to, there's no less than the presidency and the supreme court at stake.

  •  I have a question (4+ / 0-)

    A number of states, including I believe California and Maryland, have elected laws providing that their electoral votes would be cast for whoever wins the national popular vote, regardless of who wins the state votes, once states totaling 270 electoral votes have approved this plan.

    Question:  What are the chances of enough remaining states approving this plan by 2016 to implement it?  What states have voted for this and what states might vote for this?  What are the states where Democrats hold majorities in each house of the state legislature, and the governorship, so that this plan might be approved?

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:13:49 PM PST

    •  Really really bad idea (0+ / 0-)

      IMO -- there is no way I want electors from Rhode Island and Massachusetts and California to be forced to vote for the Republican, just because the GOP manages to suppress enough votes elsewhere to steal the national popular vote, or at least make it look that way on the day the Electoral College votes get counted.

      I think this would be a recipe for sheer chaos -- RI elects Democratic electors, but they are then required to vote for the Santorum/Ryan ticket? They wouldn't do it. Electors always have the option of voting their conscience rather than their instructions (that's one of the ongoing arguments against the whole Electoral College system) -- but in this instance they would be voting both their conscience and the conscience and opinion of the people in their own state. Since many of them serve in public office anyway, or are community leaders, they are going to vote the way their constituents want them to.

      Result: chaos, throwing the election to either the House of Representatives (which we know the GOP has gerrymandered its way into control of) or the SCOTUS (see: Bush v. Gore).

      This is a really, really, terrible idea, and I hope it goes away before more damage is done.

      •  Electors are Party Activists, Americans Support (0+ / 0-)

        The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

        If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

        The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

        Opponents remain stuck on a misconception that the plan would “force” states to give their electoral votes to a candidate that may not have won their state, but this misses the point entirely. The National Popular Vote plan changes the Electoral College from an obstruction of the popular will to a ratifier in that it would always elect the candidate who has won the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Rather than states throwing their votes away, the actual voters themselves are empowered, as each and every one of us would have an equal vote for president – something we are sorely lacking under the Electoral College.
        http://www.fairvote.org/...

        National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state.  Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

        And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

        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.

        In state polls of voters each with a second  question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

         Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

        Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

        Support for a National Popular Vote
        South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
        see http://tinyurl.com/...

        Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
        see http://tinyurl.com/...

        Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
        see http://tinyurl.com/...

    •  National Popular Vote Bill - 49% of the way (0+ / 0-)

      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 National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas(6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), New York (29), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island (4), Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), and Washington (13). These nine jurisdictions have 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

      NationalPopularVote.com

  •  Never had any illusions about this: (9+ / 0-)
    Unless this effort is buried, all elected Democrats must understand and act on the reality that Republicans with this effort are proving they are neither responsible nor responsive, and that their every pretense of patriotism and honor is nothing but a lie.
    The good thing is that as Florida backs away from this, as Virginia backs away, and as other targeted "battleground states" under Republican control reconsider this "strategy," the other states in play become increasingly isolated.  Aside from the disquieting roiling and resultant vitriolic anger that would be normally foreign to sleepy Central Pennsylvanians, for example,  there are real disincentives for this type of Electoral realignment in the traditional battleground states, including loss of prestige, loss of promises and money by Presidential wannabees who come a-courting. The argument that:  "Florida and Virginia" backed away from this plan--why are we doing it?" becomes more and more effective.  
  •  I live in Pennsylvania (10+ / 0-)

    Where they are trying the same thing.  

    They will have to pry my vote from my cold dead fingers.

    Posted to Facebook.

    • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." -Thomas Paine
    • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King
    • I am the 99%

    by Tommymac on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:16:41 PM PST

  •  The Republicans are authoritarians. (17+ / 0-)

    They care only about obtaining and retaining political power.  For them, that end justifies any means needed to achieve it.  This latest effort is just further proof -- as if any were needed -- that Republicans have no use for democracy and are not acting in good faith.

    It remains to be seen whether Democrats and the MSM will call this effort what it is.  Given their response to the Republican chicanery of the past, I'm not especially hopeful.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:16:43 PM PST

    •  It wasn't a Dem at all, but Boney who in his most (3+ / 0-)

      recent acceptance speech said the Rs were no longer even listening to their own constituents, but to 'the times.' If this doesn't give their actual position, nothing does.

      •  And how often have their leadership (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sister Havana

        railed against the supposed "moral relativism" of the Democrats when the Republicans appear to completely lack any moral fiber or compass whatever? They know no allegiance but power, and will prostitute themselves to any person or scheme that offers it. Calling them swine is an insult to decent, honest pigs.

        Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

        by OrdinaryIowan on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:31:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i'd let them get a little ways along (0+ / 0-)

    their 20/20 hindsight vision tells them that the big boehner they pulled in '12 was in not getting the vote stalling tactics operational quickly enough.  so this is a brief window, which coincides with the obama 1st yr second term window to nail his plans and legacy.  

    it'd be cool if R's wasted all that time on vote stealing instead of the crisis of all crisis, wo is all of us, (aka unless you shave a few points of health care waste crisis)

    what lincoln said http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/10/abraham-lincoln-was-on-to-wind-power-long-before-the-rest/

    by rasfrome on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:18:01 PM PST

  •  Confederate 3/5-of-a-vote scheme (4+ / 0-)

    They can't win nationally anymore, until they change their platform. But they still dominate the states of the Confederacy. The GOP wants the votes of everyone else to count for, say, 3/5 of a vote. Keep in mind that any state could change over to the GOP scheme even during the interlude between the 2016 election and the day the Electoral College votes are counted. They are, after all, profoundly cynical.

    Let's call it the Confederate 3/5-of-a-vote scheme.

    •  Actually, I don't think you can change the rules (0+ / 0-)

      after the election.

      Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the day after the 2016 election Michigan passed a law that said "All electoral votes go to the candidate with the second-highest total."

      That wouldn't stand, because it would thwart the will of the voters.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:53:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect it wouldn't stand (0+ / 0-)

        Because the state legislature would be pressured. SERIOUSLY pressured to change it.

        I wouldn't rule out physical threats, either. You screw around with people's voting at that level, and all hell can break loose.

        Doing things like that has triggered overthrows of governments.

      •  I think you're right, (0+ / 0-)

        but the key is finding a Constitutional basis for that argument.

        Article II says a state's Electors shall be chosen "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", but says Congress may specify the "time of chusing the electors" (i.e. set the election day).  

        I'm not an expert, but that sounds like a state can change the rules -- but I think even a Republican Supreme Court would have a tough time allowing the rules to change after election day.

  •  That Priebus photo looks familiar. ;) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Eric Nelson

    Thank you Laurence, for this superb diary.

    Priebus's propaganda machine will be in full force, and will go to great lengths to distort reality in order to hoodwink voters into thinking, as he put it on Friday, that the Republican Party is the "innovative" one that offers something "new," and that we're the ones who are somehow "out-of-date."

    We have to keep pushing back as hard as we can.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:19:21 PM PST

  •  Thanks for the info; time to put on my volunteer (4+ / 0-)

    Hat again. We can & will beat them.

    What democracy? We pretend poorly for the TV.

  •  Can we agree to just call this guy "Prince Rebus? (4+ / 0-)

    It would be ever so much easier than struggling with the pronunciation each time.

    Have you noticed?
    Politicians who promise LESS government
    only deliver BAD government.

    by jjohnjj on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:21:56 PM PST

  •  You don't understand... (9+ / 0-)

    Republicans are in a desperate battle to save America and the Constitution. It's just that they've determined that the flaw in the whole system is democracy.

    They mean to remedy the problem through a four step plan.

    1) Disenfranchise
    2) Redistrict
    3) Reaportion
    4) Rule forever

  •  Most of the media won't speak up because (16+ / 0-)

    they can't figure out a way to say "both parties are doing it..."

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:25:48 PM PST

  •  They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. (7+ / 0-)

    Thanks for highlighting this abomination early, the better to squelch it now.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:27:49 PM PST

  •  They have nothing to lose (9+ / 0-)

    "Tearing the country apart" is not a bad outcome from the extreme rightwing POV. They have already lost what they consider their birthright: the exclusive hold of straight white males on political power (leading to erosion of other formerly exclusive rights and privileges as women, gays, and people of color become full participants in our society). For them, it's not a problem if their desperate flailing results in the death of the great American democracy, because in their narcissistic rage they feel like it's already gone.

    It's a very dangerous emotional state, for others as well as for themselves. Reminds me of the abusive husband who would rather kill his wife, children, and himself than see them walk away from his domination.

    Brr. Nasty thought, that.

  •  when this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, ranton

    is their working electoral policy-- they admit it, everybody knows it-- how do they have any credibility on any other issues?  Again, how does ANYBODY vote for these guys?

    the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity

    by mailman27 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:31:10 PM PST

  •  It's getting clear (5+ / 0-)

    I hope it's getting clear to more and more people that today's GOP are anarchists, pure and simple.  Grover Norquist ain't kidding: they do not want there to be ANY government.  They are old school anarchists.

    You'd think the Feinsteins and the Pryors and the Nelsons and the Schumers would start to understand that their opponents have become nihilistic.

  •  gerrymandering and firearms (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, mchestnutjr

    It's a dangerous long term game they're playing. But it's the only one they've got. Now we have a Democrat as President. It's past time for some bully pulpit on this issue. There is no reason we should have to refight the voting rights act with jim crow extending beyond the color barrier to include non-Republicans in the Supreme Court because, if it came to that, the Court is packed.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:31:50 PM PST

  •  Their problem is worse than this ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dvalkure, Laurence Lewis, ranton
    rather than try to better represent the will of the American electorate
    They need to be/become different people.  They need different brains.  And a heart and soul wouldn't hurt either.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:33:27 PM PST

  •  The Electoral College is a holdover from when (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    communications traveled at the speed of a horse. As technology progressed, that speed increased, to where we are today - nearly instantaneous.

    The real decision here is to simply abolish the Electoral College, via a constitutional amendment.

    Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

    by Spud1 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:34:15 PM PST

    •  not true (6+ / 0-)

      The Rich landowners wanted to control the election of president and didn't trust the common man to elect the president.
      It wasn't until about Andrew Jacksons election that the electoral college awarded the  votes the way people voted.

    •  3% of US Pop Could Stop Amendment (0+ / 0-)

      To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

      Instead, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), by state laws.

      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

  •  Prince Riebus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, mchestnutjr

    I may be slightly dyslexic because that's how I always read and pronounce his name.

  •  it ain't happening (0+ / 0-)

    the gop are poo pooing the idea. i do not see it happening, and if some of them do try, i see civil rights groups stepping in and the courts overturning it.

    i thought the gop were good at the fear factor. listen to yourself

  •  No, we will rip the GOP down and I mean the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    American people most of whom will and have turned them down, but they are not out, we can help them by running positive people instead of those who attack minorities, women and gy people.  Demographics is totally against them and young people find them laughable.  They may end as we know them and I do not agree that hey have the power to bring the country down, it is they that are going down.  Mr. Priebus is running for Head of the GOP Buffoons.

  •  The governor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, mmacdDE

    In this case has fortunately come out against this already.  Sometimes, enough of a stinker can even get (R)s to realize that just proposing it makes them look like asshats.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:37:41 PM PST

    •  They fear for their own political survival (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, a2nite

      Five of the six states in question have GOP governors up for reelection next year who have either mediocre (Walker, Kasich) or downright horrendous (Scott, Corbett, Snyder) approval ratings and really don't need anything making things worse for them (except Snyder, who I'm convinced isn't going to run again). The sixth, McDonnell, has clear 2016 ambitions and therefore is petrified of doing anything that will jeapordize the "moderate" image he's trying to project. So he's running from this like the plague.

      Hell, Ken Cuccinelli is disavowing this scheme. If he won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, you know it isn't going anywhere.

  •  National Popular Vote(NPV) get rid of the .. (5+ / 0-)

    electoral college. This would ensure that the repugs lose for a long time!!

    America, We blow stuff up!!

    by IndyinDelaware on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:39:46 PM PST

  •  You know, it's kinda hard to get appropriately (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    scared by an article that opens with a photo of Reince Priebus doing his Mr. Bean impersonation while calling himself Reince Priebus.

  •  The end of democracy in the United States (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, a2nite, lady blair

    We must protect the citizen's right to vote and the right for that vote to count.

    1.1 million more votes and lose by 35 seats.

    V.P. Gore won the popular vote and lost the Presidential election.

  •  Considering (5+ / 0-)

    how quickly Republican legislators and Spokespeople were  to cry secession, and considering how the GOP leadership did not disavow these calls for secession, I can only conclude that the GOP, both rank and file and the party organization itself, are perfectly OK with tearing the country apart.

  •  Permanent Republican Majoirty Law (5+ / 0-)

    Why don't they just pass a law that says the state's electoral votes all go to the Republican candidate?

    Why not a law that says each office goes to the Republican candidate.

    Why not a law that says "the president shall be the Republican candiadte", and every other office too?

    If Democrats can't run against these literal autocrats by telling the people specifically how Republicans voted for literal autocracy, then the people don't deserve democracy. The other states should just protect themselves from the inevitable messy collapse of the Republican paradise states.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:44:12 PM PST

  •  Maybe We've Got It Wrong (0+ / 0-)

    "And it would be perfectly legal, because we choose our presidents through the Electoral College, and there are very few rules about how the electors are allocated. Make no mistake: This is a war on the very concept of democracy and republic."

    OK, I know that what I'm going to say will sound like it's coming from a Republican whackjob.  But THAT is not what I am, believe me!

    There is no other way to put it; the Republicans are out of control.  And they have the court system in their hip pockets -- from the Supreme Court on down.  In view of that, it looks to me like the only way to stop them is through an armed rebellion, unless someone can come up with a better plan.

    In view of that, instead of fighting for gun control -- which will never come to pass, given Harry Reid and other Democrats presently in the House and Senate -- how about us getting our own guns?  And then when the Republicans cross the line -- which they will do inevitably -- we simply run our own replay of 1776 -- our own revolt against tyranny?

    I know that this is an awful idea.  But if someone can come up with a better one,, and a peaceful, rational way to achieve what armed violence could achieve, I am more than willing to hear it out.  The whole point is, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, and we'd better start thinking about how to do it.

  •  Frightening (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, mchestnutjr, ranton

    Thank you Mr. Lewis for bringing this to light. This is the most frightening thing I have heard about our political system. We must all contact our representatives in government, federal and state, and let them know how horrible this would be for the country. We all must realize now that there is no limit to the depth that some in the Republican Party will go. Their wish to literally take representative government from the people, has no description to fit it's horror. We must fight them with every possible effort we can, because the future of this democracy is at risk if we do not.

    •  This isn't really a new scheme or anything (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      Stuff like it has been proposed before. In fact (if anyone from California can confirm this, I'd appreciate it), I think there was a scheme after the 2008 election to either divide California's electoral votes by congressional district (which would give the GOP a sizable number of EVs in a state they get blown out in) or have the GOP portions of California secede a la West Virginia and form a new, solid GOP state. Crazy, I know and it didn't go anywhere, but I think it had some sizable GOP names in CA backing it (like Darrell Issa and his $).

      And of course, the PA GOP tried this before last election, but it collapsed and didn't go anywhere (largely because the GOP House delegation and the state legislators were terrified it could cost them). Same deal will happen here.

  •  Agreed. We haven't been concerned enough by this (0+ / 0-)

    As if this was just some everyday political "gaming the system" like playing with early voting hours (not to say that wasn't a huge deal). But this is deeper, as it would institutionalize anti-democratic governance in a fundamental way. Imagine if every presidential election was like 2000?

    If we were lucky, that result would prompt passage of a Constitutional amendment to finally abolish the awful Electoral College. If not, the legitimacy of the US system of government would be called into question, and could lead to civil unrest, or worse...

    Thankfully some somewhat-sane Republicans are backing away from this scheme.

  •  It's telling they only want to do this in the blue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluezen

    states. If they were really commited, they would try to do it in all 50, but then that would wipe out some red state houses and governorships...

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:55:18 PM PST

  •  their biggest advantage is talk radio yet there is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Deejay Lyn

    no organized opposition to it aside from the specific targeted boycotts of limbaugh sponsors for hate speech.

    and we let them piggyback our universities to the extent that if they couldn't anymore they would lose their radio monopoly and that huge advantage. they can't do shit without it- it is the main tool the 1% use to short circuit the feedback mechanisms a democracy needs to succeed.

    whatever progressives try to do is minimized and negated by this ignore-ance of talk radio.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:57:27 PM PST

  •  Steal An Election? Teahadist Endgame Is A Massacre (4+ / 0-)

    ...of anyone tries to protest after the fact.

    And there would be protests if on live tv on election night  the whole nation sees the GOP decisively defeated, but winning the election anyway.

    Someone must have gamed this scenario, which wold require that they kill people on live national television.  Anyone who followed the reaction to OWS knows how eager they are to make this happen. Hell there might even be the equivalent of the National Socialists failed Beer Hall Putsch where Republican state governments declare martial law in the face of a "failed" Democratic national government.  

    The right has been fantasizing about mobilizing the all-white goober redneck army for several decades for an apocalyptic purge of dissenters and ethnic cleansing of the cities.  Few liberals have any idea how deeply ingrained this fantasy has become in the conservative movement over the last 25 years.

    Many Tea Party favorites have been rubbing elbows  with people like this his whole life. More mainstream Republicans might go pretty far down the road before they have that crucial conversation where they ask someone "Well won't there be objections, won't people protest?" and the red-map backers looks at him blankly and says "We kill them, we kill all of them. Hasn't that been understood from the start?"

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:04:10 PM PST

    •  riderless daemon-driven motorcycles.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...with lots of sharp choppy swords. That would be a neat solution, a la Daemon and Freedom (tm).

      In all seriousness, the casual pepper-spraying of peaceful protesters is at most two steps away from finding mutilated bodies in the gutter, also known as The Salvador Option. The death squads are prepped and waiting. That is #1 out of the three or four ways this might end. Another way is tanks in the streets and an outright coup coupled by dissolution of the Union as in the former USSR. Another is, a Democratic administration with balls uses the unlimited power of the federal government to put an end to the billionaire conspiracy behind this, by whatever means necessary. The fourth: a stable Democratic majority emerges led by sparkly ponies and rainbow fairies that has veto proof majorities in both houses for a generation to remove the Bush era fifth collumn from the civil service and judiciary, coupled by similar persistent majorities in all state governments to undo the ALEC coup-from-below.

      I would prefer #4, but as a betting man, I am going with #1.

      Scripture says "resist not evil", but evil unresisted will prevail.

      by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:40:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans are a fascist party in waiting. (6+ / 0-)

    The authoritarian, moronic party can't wait to get its hands on the reins of power.  Witness the gerrymandering of districts exclusively in the tea-party vein of wanton, selfish, white-male privilege.

    If not for the real souls of democracy, standing in line for HOURS to cast their vote, the demonic cesspool that is the Republicans, we, the people, would be losing rights and earned benefits on a daily basis.

    Do I have an instinctual hate for the Republican party and Republicans in general?  You're damn right!

    •  Hereditary Billionaires As Nietzschean Supermen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranton, Boreal Ecologist

      They've spent their whole life in a little bubble, probably raised by parents who had actual Fascist beliefs.  

      Romney fund raiser Harlan Crow actually owns paintings by Hitler, a signed copy of Mein Kampf, and sculptures of other famous dictators.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:09:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fascism in history (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluezen, coral, ranton

      Franco in Spain is the best example, but in so many cases, a disputed election is the triggering event which causes a military action, or overthrow, which then brings full blown Fascism to the country.

      Democracy was ended in the US South for 100 years because the ruling classes did not like the results of the election of 1860.

      I cannot count the number of Latin American countries where a disputed election led to a Fascist overthrow.

      Germany and Italy, however, did not become Fascist until trickery led to outlawing of all other parties.

  •  I could support Congressional District EV, BUT... (0+ / 0-)

    only if the remaining delegate went to the popular vote winner.

    A big problem with the Virginia GOP plan, as pointed out by Rachel, is that the remaining EVs (two I believe) were set to go to whoever won the most Congressional Districts.  Obviously this would favor Reps in Red States, and Dems in Blue States.

    However, a plan that apportioned EVs by Congressional District winners, with the remaining EV votes going to the state's popular vote winner, would be much more democratic.

    Rachel pointed out that this would make a national election truly national.  In the last election, you would have found Romney campaigning in parts of California and maybe rural New England, while Obama would go to cities in Red States.  This would make much more sense than having candidates pour millions into Ohio, Florida and other swing states, while ignoring the rest of us.

    Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

    by cks175 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:05:22 PM PST

    •  Hello to the US Parliament! (0+ / 0-)

      If the voter knew their House vote WAS INDEED the Presidential vote, that might change how they vote, because it would count more than as a protest while trusting the grownups to keep it down. As IBM says, results would be unpredictable.

      Also the Virginia objection was that they want to be courted as a whole sovereign state.

      Apportioning by Cong District as above winners rewards the gerrymandering which is the root of this GOP plot. How about a state would award its electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote (not by district, but by percentage which would avoid the gerrymandering impact)), with the two senate votes to the winner?

      "Vote for me, I could use the work"

  •  Why don't they just go on back to (6+ / 0-)

    having the Senate picked by state governors and legislators and then have the Senate pick the President - oh and eliminate the House - and have ExxonMobile and Scientologists appoint judges and run the prison systems in which we all will eventually live.

    /snark

    •  Trust me...some ReTHUGs are all over the push to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inclusiveheart

      repeal the 17th Amendment...via Corporatist "orders" I'm sure!  

      Those working to re-impose the Gilded Age before Granger, Populist, Progressive, and New Dealer reforms salivate at the thought of controlling state legislatures as a way to control Federal government again.  The two-bit state players sell themselves much cheaper than their federal counter-parts!

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:47:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  These. Fucking. Bastards. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, KeithH

    Otherwise, words fail me.

    Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

    by OrdinaryIowan on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:09:04 PM PST

  •  Remember that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranton, Laurence Lewis, Val

    we don't have a constitutional right to vote. That needs to be changed.

    When you're dealing with people who have no integrity, who could care less if they win fairly, whose only goal is to line up the trophies on the mantel even if they bought them all in a pawn shop last weekend, you have to play hard. These people are dishonest and dirty; we will have to root out the honest ones (all three of them) and appeal to their sense of integrity (?)

    Or better yet, appeal to the integrity of the American people.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:09:40 PM PST

  •  Rigging (0+ / 0-)

    This is a war on the very nature of our system of governance.

    In other words, it's exactly like the National Popular vote compact, in which a bare majority of the states agree to vote as a bloc and cut the rest of union out of choosing the President.

    Readers may consider a close election in the popular vote, like 1960 or 2000, a dispute as to who won the popular vote, and some number of states declining t recount the popular vote on the grounds it was totally clear who won their electoral votes.  Readers may also want to consider massive turnout among the dead, ummh differently metabolically gifted, throwing the national total, not just the totals in one state.

    These ideas should both be deep-sixed.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:10:14 PM PST

    •  but... (0+ / 0-)
      "...a bare majority of the states agree to vote as a bloc and cut the rest of union out of choosing the President."
      But the people in the other states do choose, because they contribute to the popular vote for the president.  National popular vote states agree to give their votes to whomever won the popular vote nationally.  So, every vote in every state counts equally in the presidential race.
    •  Current System Maximizes Opp & Incentive (0+ / 0-)

      Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people's votes don't count for anything is not a compelling argument.

      The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

      National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression.  One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

      The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes.  The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

      For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

      Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

      •  All votes count (0+ / 0-)

        If you don't believe me, contemplate NY and CA democrats believing this and staying home, so that the Republicans carry NY and CA.

        National Popular Vote breaks one of the basic compacts attendant to the agreement that formed the Second (current) Republic, replacing the Articles of Confederation.

        Mind you, its chances of going through are moderately negligible, because it is obviously an effort to reverse a rerun of the 2000 election.  Look at the list of states that have ratified it.  Look for the deep red states.

        In addition, the first time it may have an effect, consider that state legislatures that joined the compact and are losing a President as a result may between election Day and December 15 change their method of choosing electors, to stay with the majority in their own state.

        Remember also that there is no official vote count of the total in all 50 states, so the compact, well, has some serious technical issues.

        We can have change for the better.

        by phillies on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:04:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Current System Increases Need for Recounts (0+ / 0-)

      The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

      The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

      The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

      Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

      The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

      The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

      We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

      The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
      “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

      Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

      The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

      No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

      The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.  In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

    •  Every Vote Equal and Counted in Every Election (0+ / 0-)

      The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

      National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state.  Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

      And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates.  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

       With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.  Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

      Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

      When and where voters matter, then so are the issues they care about most.

  •  Clinging To My Guns A While Longer nt (0+ / 0-)

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:13:42 PM PST

  •  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, ranton, shanikka

    One little lapse in focus, and shithead authoritarian nut bars like these take over the wheel and drive us all off the fucking cliff.  

    Sad really.  Why can't we just have a system of governance that works the way it was designed to?  Why must we continually worry about some band of thugs coming in and destroying it from within?

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:16:57 PM PST

    •  Answer: human nature, unfortunately! The need to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Apost8

      control and exercise "power" is an evil incarnate that feeds on the basest instincts of far too many Americans.  

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:57:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time for a Constitutional amendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral, a2nite, ranton

    Abolish the Electoral College and elect the President by direct popular vote.  The GOP wants to use gerrymandering to elect minority Presidents who will then be so weak that they will be a rubber stamp for the Koch brothers.

    A new birth of freedom..

    by docterry on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:19:32 PM PST

    •  I agree in principle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranton

      But the idea that we are going to get 2/3s of both Houses and 3/4s of the states to change to a system that is fair is I fear impossible.

      There are practical problems with PV.

      1) Is the winner the person with the most votes, or a majority?

      2) If it is the most votes, what is to stop the Koch Bros et al from financing a black candidate, a Latino candidate, a Green candidate, a gay candidate, all in the intent to keep down the vote for the Dem? Don't think for a second that it wouldn't be game on the moment the system switched to plurality, but not majority, required.

      3) We don't have uniform voting standards in this country. Think voter suppression was bad last year? Wait until PV becomes the rule - at that point, Repub controlled states will do all in their power to limit Dem voters, and absent national standards, they'd be more likely to get away with it.

      I personally favor PV, with a runoff if no one gets 50%, but only with national standards for federal elections with enforcement power. I'd obviously prefer PV in any form to this hijacking of the EC plan, but people should understand the law of unintended consequences that would come with PV.

      •  Candidate with Most Votes Wins (0+ / 0-)

        Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

        With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

        Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

        If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement.  In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

        Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.--  including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

        Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

        And, FYI, with the current system, it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes.

      •  Now 537 Votes in 1 State Can Determine (0+ / 0-)

        The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I).  The fact is that the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways.  The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President.

        There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President.

        Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.

        Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each.  The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

        Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state.  The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.

        For example, the 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported  2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact.

  •  This must be stopped (5+ / 0-)

    It is an existential threat to our survival as a democratic nation with true representative government.  It is an astonishing development.  I will fight this in any legal way possible.  The Republicans are being outrageous in many ways.  The 2012  voting debacle in my state, Florida, was something that we must never allow to happen again

  •  Yes, they will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boreal Ecologist

    Yes the GOP will tear this country apart.  And they will lose the battle.  They're already into the realm of they can't win without a gimmick.  

    I'm not afraid of this Republican party.  They thought they had the election sewed up with Citizens United and their voter suppression efforts.  It backfired.  So will this.  

  •  THIS is revolution-worthy. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mchestnutjr, a2nite, bluezen, Val

    If they want a real fight, let them pull this shit.

    I was driving along today cursing my fucking steering-wheel
    because I had nowhere else to vent my bile. Of all the dozens of dirty tricks that they've pulled this is transparently treasonous and amounts to a coup-d'etat. I simply won't let them.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:29:27 PM PST

    •  I would pick up a gun for this, the preservation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wildthumb

      Of the USA.

      •  Exactly. Transparently treasonous. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Val

        To think I used to respect some Republicans when I was growing up. This party has has veered off into crime, not just insanity.

        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

        by Wildthumb on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:03:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Really? Maine and Nebraska do it (0+ / 0-)

      and no one has objected to that.

      The real problem is that the GOP, through its control of state legislatures, has gerrymandered the Congressional districts to ensure their own power over the House, and now wants to change the rules to extend that structural advantage to the Presidency.

      I can't see any particular reason why EVs should be allocated on a statewide at-large basis rather than by Congressional district. I do see strong reasons not to allow this GOP gang to make that change for the transparently obvious reason that it enables them to win where they otherwise can't -- but that doesn't make it unconstitutional or revolutionary, just politically undesirable.

  •  It's dead in Virginia . . . for now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow, Sister Havana

    Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and . . . are you ready for this? . . . Attorney General Ken Kookynelly both have said this is a bad idea.  The Republican chair of the state Senate committee that must approve the proposal has said it's a bad idea.  So, looks as thought it's dead in Virginia FOR THE TIME BEING.

    However, the GOP has identified this is a way to win and they will never give up.  They'll just keep hammering away at it.

  •  Is this about winning at all costs or are they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mchestnutjr, ranton

    Really trying to tear this country apart?  I'm really starting to wonder based on their rhetoric which seems more extreme than usual of late.  What a hateful nasty bunch.

    "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

    by AnnieR on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:32:47 PM PST

  •  If this assault by the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyinDelaware, a2nite, ranton

    do not stop you from voting for - any - Republican for any reason ----

    nothing will.

    How many times have I heard -- I vote for the best person for the position ...

    Stop it -- just stop it -- Republicans in charge of anything will steal and cheat their way to ruin for the rest of us.

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:33:30 PM PST

    •  Wisconsin 2011 opened my eyes...never again will a (0+ / 0-)

      Republican get my vote.  The liberalism of my young adulthood was replaced by "independent" voting in my middle age.  I am now a radicalized liberal as I approach senior-citizen status.  I am not alone in this...just as I saw what was under their mask ...more and more see it every day.

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:08:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't remember what the rhetoric was like when (0+ / 0-)

    the democrats were out of power numbers wise up to Bush.  But I caught what the guy who ran for vp with Romney said a day or two ago.  About picking fights with Obama.  

    Here we are in the midst of crisis and the GOP is more concerned about picking fights with the president who happens to be a democrat.  Shows you what the real priorities are with the GOP.  

    The problem is that the plan that the GOP has in their minds will work as far as getting the depicit starting to turn back the other way.  The part that has everyone worried is at what cost.  

    That we have a finacial mess on our hands is true, true, true...  It is true that spending cuts would slow it down (not stop it).  The republicans have brained washed their tribe to believe that everyone effected by the cuts (mainly entitlements) are shiftless and lazy.  That these people are not willing to contribute to the work force because of entitlements.  

    This is how out of touch they are with the people who are not a part of their wine and brie parties.  

    Democrats have the numbers now by default,  Their policies in this mess reach across all the campaign phraseology designed to draw people to one party or the other.

    If I were a democratic strategy leader I would drop most public dialogue with the GOP and about them and concentrate on giving more definition to what they are going to do for the country.  Time now to formulate the plan.  Up to now they have been living off the bush years, sara palin and limbaugh...basically the stoopids of the GOP scene.  There hollywoodites.  

    If they ditch palin and coulter then the dems better have some substance.  

    I may not be deep, but I am very wide... Honree Balzac

    by meknow on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:34:29 PM PST

  •  Thank you Mr. Lewis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranton, Laurence Lewis

    for bringing this to wider attention

    and a Bronx cheer to all those who call this "Chicken Little" stuff or think that because a less effective form of this strategy did not work  for the GOP in 2012, this newer form of disenfranchisement won't work in 2014 or 2016.

    Yes, it's true that, angered by this attempt at disenfranchisement, many Democratic voters were only more determined to vote.  But don't forget that we were aided in many cases by judicial rulings that nullified many of the worst aspects of these voter suppression attempts.

    It's not clear that any of this new crap is illegal and I don't see what there is to stop it legally.  Republicans are gleefully grabbing any plum within reach, and damned the consequences.  You have to put this together with Scott Walker's actions in Wisconsin, with Right-to-Work in Michigan and every other prize available to them and their perhaps temporary gerrymander-enabled majorities.  They seem to be treating every instance where they have power as a mandate.

    Compare and contrast that, if you will to the dismal performance of Harry Reid and the Senate Dems on Filibuster Reform.  The Republicans are acting as if nothing can stop them.  Democrats are acting as if their majorities are flukes.  

    It seems to me that many of these efforts are going to go through.  Yes, we need to raise our voices against it but that might not be enough.  We need to be focused on the nuts and bolts of reversing this if it happens.  And I'm not seeing that, even from Lawrence Lewis, who I just praised for bringing this up.

    In how many of these states would these actions be reversible by referendum?  
    We need to know that and organize for it.  Compare and contrast Wisconsin and Ohio.

    What are the odds that these actions might be overruled by courts?  
    We need to know that.  

    How can we mobilize before these things get sprung on us?
    We need to know that.

    sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

    by stivo on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:34:31 PM PST

  •  WTF?..WILL..GOP have torn this country apart (0+ / 0-)

    where have you been?

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:35:28 PM PST

  •  Nat' Popular Vote Interstate Compact (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyinDelaware

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:43:04 PM PST

  •  I want this covered on the History Commons. (0+ / 0-)

    Researchers and writers, sing out.

    mtuck AT historycommons DOT org

  •  Where have you been? It already has!n/t (0+ / 0-)

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:48:58 PM PST

  •  Even more extreme possibility (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sister Havana, ranton

    In the horror show that was Bush v Florida, Scalia commented that a state can allocate its electoral votes however it chooses, even (this was his example) having the state legislature, not the voters, decide who gets them. (This he said would be legal because the voters elected the legislature).

    I'd like an election lawyer to comment on this - is this something post-2014 a combined Repub leg/gov combo in one of these states could enact? (That is, deciding that they'll be the voters choosing the electors themselves, thus ensuring 100% Repub votes). If Scalia is right (I assume it would be challenged, but what if he got a majority), might not some of these zealots be tempted to do this after it was too late to unelected them before 2016?

    Sorry to be alarmist, but at this point we need to anticipate the worst.

    On a related point - over the years I have regularly said to our great Dem friends in Nebraska who were understandably thrilled at the 1 EV Obama got in 2008 that were I Nebraska Dem I'd be leading the charge to have Nebraska revert to winner take all. This is exactly why I said this - messing with the present system would only make things worse for Dems.

  •  People should know who the tyrants really are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, ranton

    Tyrants impose their will on the people and while most have had so-called election, they are rigged either by the lack of a choice or complete disregard for the results.  
    So when Tea-publicans shout "tyrant" and "manifesto", democrats should state no uncertain terms who the REAL tyrants are.  Besides republicans seem to always accuse the other side of what they are truly guilty of.

    Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?

    by Tx LIberal on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:02:05 PM PST

  •  I think the approach is fairly clear (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluezen, KeithH

    The answer to this is three-fold

    1. Work to stop these efforts
    2. Make clear the anti-democratic nature of these efforts
    3. Use them to pass the National Popular Vote legislation in the requisite number of states to make it effective.

    9 states totaling 132 EV's have already passed the legislation. This is just shy of half the required number of 270.

    It has close to 2/3's support amongst the people.

    There are several potential target states for passing such legislation. Democratic controlled states do not add up to the required 270 but popular momentum can be built towards it to a degree... when coupled both with its popular support amongst citizens and outrage against Republican attempts to undermine the Union... could make it happen in more split or Republican controlled states. Fact of the matter is that given the current EV advantage that Democrats hold, and are likely to continue to hold, it would be to Republicans advantage to take their chances on the popular vote in which they come close every time then it is the current EV vote in which they are likely to continue to lose given current demographic trends.

    National Popular Vote is the answer.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:07:53 PM PST

  •  The Republicans are well aware (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    of the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, how they used the rules of democratic bodies to destroy those bodies, and in their favor.

    It is not a conspiracy theory or hyperbole to recognize that the modern Republican Party is dedicated to destroying any hint of democracy.

    Which is what makes those "centrist" Demojerks in DC who always seek bipartisanshiT all the more infuriating.

    Take the filibuster, for example...

    People need to remember that the writers of the Constitution were thinking of "treason" from within when they wrote the document; having in mind the previous century-plus of the British experience where factions conspired to gain the reins of government.

    These are conscious enemies of the nation and its people, and Democrats who cede anything at all to them have to realize that they are aiding our enemies.


    Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

    by Jim P on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:08:27 PM PST

  •  Trust me, if these Republican plans ever went into (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Effect. There would be riots on the streets.

  •  why aren't more americans outraged (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, coral, a2nite

    about the gerrymandering of congress? It gets almost no coverage outside the blogs.

  •  Suppose 5 states + FL had changed laws (0+ / 0-)

    The diary notes that Obama's electoral vote margin would have been only 34 if the electoral votes in five states been allocated under 'new' rules. Suppose , however, that Florida also had some such law - what might have happened?
    Apart from Florida's 29 votes, the margin would be 5.

    The outcome then could have depended on the exact form of that law - i.e. whether the extra 2 electoral votes went to the winner of the overall popular vote in the state or to the winner of the majority of districts. Florida has 27 cong. districts which elected  17 Rep. and 10 Dem. However,  the presidential vote did not quite follow this result - in one Dem district Romney had more votes but in 2 Rep. districts, Obama had more votes.

    Overall then for the 27 districts, a 16-11 edge for Romney, wiping out the 5 vote Obama advantage - the election  would then have depended on how the two extra electoral votes were allocated!

    Link for presidential results by Congressional District
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  The underlying theme in the GOP.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, ranton

    ....these days, is that: If wealthy conservatives cannot rule America (via the Republican Party) then they will use whatever remaining power they have to destroy the country.  Sort of like, if they can't have it, nobody will.  They care nothing about the Constitution, or the Rule of Law, or Democracy, or any of that.

  •  Voter suppression ploys need to operate sub-rosa. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, ranton

    They never show up in candidate's official talking points, never in op-eds, never openly presented on talk shows. They just get sprung on the public when the time is right, and key players are in place to pull it off.

    As long as corporate media is content to just attend press conferences, do no authentic legwork and pretend to be surprised AFTER the fact, we are lost.

    OTOH, it's a great time to be a citizen journalist or Anonymous.

    •  ...the Walker, Kasich, Snyder "model"! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radhika

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:15:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The last time Republicans tore this country apart (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    ...they were called Democrats and they lost. It won't end any better for them next time.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:53:47 PM PST

  •  Buster Says (0+ / 0-)

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:03:22 PM PST

  •  Electoral College awareness (0+ / 0-)

    I think MSNBC has has a lot to do with the attention that is being paid to the immoral plan by the republiCons to change the way the electoral college votes are allocated.

    Big Eddie, Rachel & Lawrence O'Donnell have had segments on this issue.  We need to make sure that along with our Progressive blogs we keep supporting our progressive TV personalities on MSNBC.

    They never stop pushing to restrict the freedom of people to vote and have their votes count.  We need to work hard to change the state legislatures in 2014.  

  •  unconstitutional as votes would no longer be equal (0+ / 0-)

    The one man, one vote principle would be violated, no? Votes in towns don't count. Should be challenged based on the constitutionality. Also, this will lead to such a political fire storm that the GOP may very well go under.

    Even pushing this will be a big loser for the GOP.
    •  They aren't equal now. (0+ / 0-)

      The EV count is equal to House + Senate seats for that state, which means smaller states get more EVs per population than larger ones do.

      But that's set in the Constitution, so by definition it isn't unconstitutional.

      The GOP could argue that it's actually closer to one person, one vote, since they're allocating EVs the same way the House is, one for each so-many people.

      •  I understand, but I am not alone. (0+ / 0-)

        "This really is an assault on the one-person, one-vote premise of the American experiment. And retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, among others, is advocating for a renewed push on behalf of fair elections."

        "This, argues Stevens, is “outrageously unconstitutional in my judgment. The government cannot gerrymander for the purpose of helping the majority party; the government should be redistricting for the purpose of creating appropriate legislative districts. And the government ought to start with the notion that districts should be compact and contiguous as statutes used to require.”

        http://www.thenation.com/...

  •  We will win a campaign for the right to vote !!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranton, a2nite

    Bring it on GOP.

    If you really think all these old battles need to be fought again, then be ready for a big surprise. America has moved on.
  •  Disenfranchisement of both minorities and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    majorities has been a feature of our system since its beginnings. The latitude allowed the privileged few to lead and shape the nation's destiny has been granted because of relatively high levels of general prosperity made achievable by the super exploitation of certain populations both at home and abroad as well as the taking of vast tracts of other peoples' lands.

    Those days are over.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:30:21 PM PST

  •  Sanguine (0+ / 0-)

    Meh.
    There could only be a "war on democracy" if we had defined "democracy" and then were in a position to decide that the Republicans were attempting to destroy that thing. In any event, we don't have a pure democracy, our presidency wasn't designed to be chosen by a national popular majority, our congressional districts have always been subject to politicians of all parties messing with the district lines (take a look at my own Democratic 9th Congressional District : http://en.wikipedia.org/...) and, overall, I find the diary an alarmist call to panic over the extremely unlikely possibility that there will be wholesale changes in the electoral college.

  •  Well. (0+ / 0-)

    They've never quite grasped the lessons of history, now have they...

    If the Republicans do not understand the peaceful revolution that is elections, then they'll have to suffer the bloody revolution that is the reaction of the too-long disenfranchised, suppressed, oppressed and abused.

    It'll be messy.  And painful.

    Such a shame there are those who do not learn.

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:48:45 PM PST

  •  Yes, and in the mean time chicken shit Harry Reid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranton

    is afraid of enacting reasonable filibuster reform. It is about time the Dems grew a spine and stood up for main street America.

  •  The old south was founded by British (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranton, Icicle68, a2nite

    aristocrats, their lesser offspring who because of entail and primogeniture were only given what were at the time useless lands in the southern British colonies, which they filled with cash crop-growing plantations worked by African slaves. When the revolution broke out they insisted on being allowed to keep their plantations and slaves or else they'd side with the British.

    When the revolution ended, they insisted yet again on holding onto these or else no constitution, and thus no union. When growing  political pressure and trends threatened these, they seceded, causing the Civil War. When they lost that war and were forced back into the union, they found ways of preserving their prerogatives and a two-tiered society in which freed slaves and their offspring would never be able to rise above their station.

    When they were forced to abandon such neo-slavery and neo-aristocracy, they founded the modern conservative movement, both on the elite level (Bill Buckley grew up on a huge southern plantation), and at the yoeman level (i.e. Birchers, and later tea partiers). They have never given up and they will never give up. They're not just a relic from the 1950's, nor even from the 1850's. They're a relic from the 1750's and even 1650's.

    They are cultural and intellectual neanderthals who cling to their claimed feudalistic prerogatives, both the neo-aristocratic elites and their Scots-Irish lapdogs. They do not respect democracy because they do not believe in democracy. They believe in themselves, and their imagined special station in this world. They believe in white male power. They believe in guns. They believe in force. And they will do whatever it takes to preserve it.

    We're at war with them. We've always been at war with them, since before the founding. While I appreciate Obama's nice words, there are and always have been "Two Americas", us and them. We're trying to preserve our America, and they theirs. But the two cannot coexist. One must be destroyed so the other can live. Our America cannot be the one that is destroyed. So we have no choice but to destroy theirs. Or at least beat it back into submission.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:05:25 PM PST

  •  So important to be aware, never let our guard down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sarenth

    "Unless this effort is buried, all elected Democrats must understand and act on the reality that Republicans with this effort are proving they are neither responsible nor responsive, and that their every pretense of patriotism and honor is nothing but a lie."

    Nothing could be more truthful. Not to sound so dramatic, but this could be the beginning of the destruction of our country.

    Change is not an event, it is a process.....

    by lady blair on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:48:18 PM PST

    •  Already seeing this (0+ / 0-)

      come to fruition here in Michigan.  Whether or not this happens to the national stage, we're seeing the devastating effects of a gerrymandered, sundered State where our votes count less and less, and power is sequestered into a very few, well-moneyed hands.

      "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

      by Sarenth on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:28:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How to Respond (0+ / 0-)

    When I hear (read) about this I don't know how to respond. It is almost incomprehensible that the right is trying to undo democracy. These people who seem to be born with a flagpole up their asses are the greatest threat to our way of life that we have ever faced. They want the right to appoint our leadership and eliminate the will of the people. They don't know America, don't understand our history and have no claim to their citizenship. This has to be stopped. The author is correct; they will destroy this country if allowed to implement these rules.

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

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

      The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).

      Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

      The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

      The bill uses the power given to each state 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 been by state legislative action.

      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

  •  Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again (0+ / 0-)

    The Joy Division, maybe the best punk band ever...great biopic about the lead singer who committed suicide.

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, Sharoney, GainesT1958, KeithH, hester, abarefootboy, Roger Lamb, johnmorris, TheGreatLeapForward, byteb, Wintermute, hyperstation, DCDemocrat, Do Something, exNYinTX, jimpharo, hubcap, agoldnyc, Zinman, EricS, PBnJ, shanikka, Paradox13, Nate Roberts, Chrisfs, Redfire, tomephil, Eric Blair, psnyder, ManhattanMan, Eyesbright, leevank, wdrath, rlharry, lcrp, Oaktown Girl, Bendra, Diana in NoVa, KateCrashes, side pocket, Black Max, lyvwyr101, jhawklefty, Skennet Boch, historys mysteries, marina, radarlady, 3goldens, Ckntfld, sap, Navy Vet Terp, reflectionsv37, jane123, kaliope, Rusty in PA, FindingMyVoice, mightymouse, Land of Enchantment, jay23, bently, Jim P, Tranny, redcedar, cybersaur, Don Briggs, Dvalkure, koNko, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, global citizen, A Siegel, philipmerrill, JVolvo, tommyfocus2003, AllDemsOnBoard, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, GarySeven, blueoregon, SD Goat, NancyWH, Aaa T Tudeattack, DBunn, Dartagnan, gloriana, Da Rat Bastid, yoduuuh do or do not, Mary Mike, wildweasels, certainot, HCKAD, jayden, Nimbus, Aunt Martha, mudslide, jnhobbs, Rumarhazzit, fallina7, July4rocks, gzodik, walja, Captain C, shaketheworld, bill warnick, bythesea, VL Baker, monkeybrainpolitics, tofumagoo, Missys Brother, Jeff Y, VirginiaBlue, No Exit, Gemina13, BYw, Al Fondy, magicsister, Mayfly, immigradvocate, legendmn, Rhysling, gf120581, cybrestrike, AntonBursch, ewmorr, tari, Zotz, PhotoElect, candid psychiatrist, mkor7, NWTerriD, badger1968, Denise Oliver Velez, stevenwag, Tommymac, Lefty Ladig, chambord, rb137, FogCityJohn, T Maysle, eXtina, Susan Grigsby, renzo capetti, JoanMar, gulfgal98, Jaimas, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, Oh Mary Oh, stevenaxelrod, annieli, kerflooey, Wisewood, Liberal Capitalist, bgblcklab1, lady blair, La Gitane, FarWestGirl, Sarenth, Hohenzollern, IllanoyGal, Wolf10, DruidQueen, PrescottPatriot, docterry, Grandma Susie, Joe Hill PDX, peregrine kate, volleyboy1, mali muso, Frameshift, reg373, ratcityreprobate, zenox, weinerschnauzer, Mentatmark, PrometheusUnbound, Azazello, Mathazar, bluezen, anodnhajo, Inkberries, DeadHead, Williston Barrett, Siri, dance you monster, Eric Nelson, David54, barkingcat, AnnieR, a2nite, Piebunion, edebs, ivy redneck, EllasSong, radical simplicity, BusyinCA, pittie70, arizonablue, wasatch, Marjmar, ShoshannaD, Sue B, swaragirl, Lily O Lady, Blue Bell Bookworm, desert rain, onceasgt, Illinois IRV, countwebb, The grouch, JayRaye, Neapolitan, MARTinNJ, georgelshea, aresea, unfangus, Jeff Murdoch, paccoli, northerntier, LaraJones, Icicle68, bob152, IndyinDelaware, pragmaticidealist, OceanDiver, Mark Mywurtz, MethuenProgressive, richardvjohnson, Pistoche, H E Pennypacker, OldSoldier99, supertascha, Capt Crunch, radams36

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site