This is a really big deal

[Guest Phailadelphia]

There's a lot of grandiose rhetoric both here and anywhere else that comments on politics, but this is an actual attempt at undermining democracy in this country. And let me preface this by saying I'd be posting this link regardless of the guilty party. This is unacceptable on every level. Anyway...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/23/virginia_state_senate_moves_ahead_on_electoral_college_rigging_bill.html

 

Virginia State Senate Moves Ahead on Electoral College-Rigging Bill

 

 

 

These guys are swiftly becoming my favorite state legislative body. From the AP:

 

Virginia's Republican-ruled legislature has taken the first steps toward ending the state's winner-takes-all system of apportioning its 13 presidential electoral votes. A Senate subcommittee recommended Sen. Bill Carrico's bill on Wednesday on a 3-3 party line vote.

 

I interviewed Carrico about the bill last month, asking why he added a provision that makes this even less democratic than other vote-split schemes. Most of these bills assign one electoral vote for every congressional district, then give the two at-large districts to whoever wins the state. But the Carrico bill would assign the final two electors to whoever won the most districts.

 

"We're still not sure we're going to leave it at that," he told me. "If we tweak the legislation somewhat to allow those votes to the statewide winner, the metropolitan voters may understand that their vote is going to be heard."

 

Not quite. The new language:

 

Receipt by a slate of electors of the highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts constitutes the election of the two at-large electors of that slate.

 

Look at the map from 2012. Mitt Romney won the 1st (53%), 4th (50%), 5th (53%), 6th (59%), 7th (57%), 9th (63%), and 10th (50%) districts. Barack Obama won the four remaining districts -- the 2nd (50%), 3rd (79%), 8th (68%), and 11th (62%). Had the Carrico plan been in place in 2012, Romney would have won nine of Virginia's electoral votes, and Obama would have won four -- even though Obama won the popular vote of the state by nearly 150,000 ballots and four percentage points.

 

It gets worse. You'll notice that the 2nd, 4th, and 10th districts were squeakers, with margins between 4,000 and 5,000 votes. Carrico's theory is that an electoral vote split would make rural areas more vital. But these districts cover the Tidewater region and the exurbs of Washington, D.C. One: Had Obama campaigned to win them, in particular, he wouldn't have necessarily focused on anything that didn't work statewide. Two: Had he won them, he would have taken eight electors to Mitt Romney's five. Winning Virginia wouldn't have been worth 13 votes. It'd have been like taking New Hampshire or Rhode Island. That's because this reform is designed to disenfranchise Democrats, not make the state more important.

 

If you put this plan into place in 2011-2012 across the swing-states that Republicans are targeting for congressional district gerrymandering, Obama would have lost the election to Mitt Romney despite winning the popular vote by over 5 million votes. Similar legislation is already underway in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and others. These are the same methods the House GOP used in 2010, and it's why there's still a GOP majority there. I don't know how many of you are aware, but the GOP lost the total popular vote in the Congressional elections by over 1 million. It's also why they hold the delusional perception that they were voted back in because people approved of the job they were doing, but I digress...

 

This is your actual voting power under attack. If this goes through in all these swing states, a Democrat president (or some other party if it fits your fancy) would have slim chance at winning the general election even if they won the popular vote in a landslide the way Obama did in 2012.

 

Edit: You should obviously have some skepticism that this can get done in every scenario. I re-read my post and realized I may have come off as fearmonger-ish. That was not my intent, but I do think this is pretty serious if they get away with it.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So the fact the article states that Mitt Romney would have won makes no nevermind to you right ? lol.

 

That said all of this is garbage anyway. Our election process is broken anyway and honestly whether it is the electoral college system fucking us or this guys new system fucking us what difference does it make ? His systeme is just as intelligent as the electoral college.

 

Tell me why we can not just go all out popular vote...the end. The electoral college has outlived its use. We live in an age where people are trying to get free rent with 1 million likes on facebook and taking the popular vote is out of the question ? Of course it is because liberals fear the midwest and the rural parts of this country. Had it been the ACTUAL popular vote Obama would have lost in a landslide. This is the general asinine nature of politics. This dudes system is no more fucked up then the one we got.

[RazorStar 4,025]

So you think it's a bad idea for the ridings to decide votes? That's a lot closer to how we do it in canada, although our ridings are separated by population, roughly 100k to a riding, but exceptions are made for geographical representation and small provinces to have a better representation. In any case It's much closer to popular vote, which is a good start to getting what the American people truly want.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Had it been the ACTUAL popular vote Obama would have lost in a landslide.

I don't understand this. Of the people that voted, more voted for Obama than Romney.

[Duck Fallas 209]

I don't understand this. Of the people that voted, more voted for Obama than Romney.

That is what I thought, too. I think that the last time the loser of the popular vote won based on the electoral college votes was 2000, GW over Gore.

[oochymp 2,393]

let's be honest here, the problem isn't Carrico's plan, which actually sounds good on paper, it's the absurd gerrymandering that takes place all over the country, fix that, split districts purely based on population, and I actually think Carrico's plan is a pretty good one to make the electoral college a closer approximation of the popular vote, though I still like determining the two 'extra' electoral votes by statewide popular vote better than who wins the most districts

[GA_Eagle 595]

^^that

[Thanatos 2,847]

I agree oochymp, having all the state's electoral votes go to someone who may have only won the state 50-49 seems incredibly silly and not at all a good representation of the state. The article complains that this would have made winning Virginia like winning RI, after complaining about the Republicans potentially setting up VA to make it not represent how its people had voted. That's rather hypocritical.

 

All states should split their electoral votes if we really want to try to get this system to approximate the people's vote as close as possible. But neither party is actually interested in doing so, what they want are nice cushy jobs that they don't really have to campaign to keep, so both parties engage in gerrymandering in order to keep themselves in power.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

So the fact the article states that Mitt Romney would have won makes no nevermind to you right ? lol.

 

That said all of this is garbage anyway. Our election process is broken anyway and honestly whether it is the electoral college system fucking us or this guys new system fucking us what difference does it make ? His systeme is just as intelligent as the electoral college.

 

Tell me why we can not just go all out popular vote...the end. The electoral college has outlived its use. We live in an age where people are trying to get free rent with 1 million likes on facebook and taking the popular vote is out of the question ? Of course it is because liberals fear the midwest and the rural parts of this country. Had it been the ACTUAL popular vote Obama would have lost in a landslide. This is the general asinine nature of politics. This dudes system is no more fucked up then the one we got.

 

Say what? Obama won the popular vote by like 5 million.

 

We don't do popular vote because the framers didn't want the president to be elected by a bunch of uneducated ignoramuses. If people want to switch to popular vote that's fine, but that's not what this is.

 

So you think it's a bad idea for the ridings to decide votes? That's a lot closer to how we do it in canada, although our ridings are separated by population, roughly 100k to a riding, but exceptions are made for geographical representation and small provinces to have a better representation. In any case It's much closer to popular vote, which is a good start to getting what the American people truly want.

 

Right, and what this does is take those geographical representations into account in giving Republicans FAR more representation. They can do this because Dems are increasingly concentrated in urban areas. It's not representative of the true vote if one guy wins a state by 4-5% and then gets only a third of the delegates as the losing candidate, is it?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

This is what happens when, essentially district boundaries, determine which candidate gets the electoral votes in states.

 

It's a broken system. Whether they decide to stay with the current setup or move to the new setup, it is equally flawed. The only difference is which party it favors.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

This wouldn't be happening if we still didn't use the lolElectoralCollege in the first place.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I don't understand this. Of the people that voted, more voted for Obama than Romney.

 

Yes because from what I can gather in the midwest people dont even vote because states like Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and so on get 6 votes. Why would you vote when in the grand scheme of things mean jack and shit ? Tell me how Washington DC gets 3 votes when they have a little over 600,000 people. The statee of Kansas has more than that in 1 city and yet they get half the votes Kansas does.

 

The electoral college gives farmers in the midwest absolutely ZERO incentive to vote. I would say that Obama would not have won it or it would at the very least have been a hell of a lot closer than it was.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Say what? Obama won the popular vote by like 5 million.

 

We don't do popular vote because the framers didn't want the president to be elected by a bunch of uneducated ignoramuses. If people want to switch to popular vote that's fine, but that's not what this is.

 

Yes of the people that voted. Call it a hunch but if the peoples vote actually counted then more people would vote and the 5 million would have been made up in the midwest alone.

 

And the people voting now are not uneducated ignoramuses. Yeah I have to disagree, and I think it would be a tough sell to most people to convince them that anyone who represents us is educated.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

So this thing is probably dead. Virginia AG says no way, jose.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/26/ken_cuccinelli_virginia_republican_candidate_for_governor_opposes_electoral.html

[Duck Fallas 209]

Would this even have been brought up by the Rep from Virginia had Romney won the Presidency? It is just more of the bitterness over the GOP not giving the nod to a better candidate.

 

(To be honest, I thought that Romney had the best chance to unseat Obama back at the start of the election process.)

[WindyCitySports 407]

This is actually not as much an attempt at hijacking democracy as it is an infringement on republicanism (small 'r'). If we had done it this way from the beginning, you wouldn't think twice about it, and it would still be democratic (small 'd'). However, since we are indeed a democratic REPUBLIC, we have always put an emphasis on individual states, and this is actually taking away the state aspect.

 

Also, it is very partisan. Perhaps the GOP should focus more on changing their message, especially on social issues, to win these states back than trying to rig the system.

[Thanatos 2,847]

This is actually not as much an attempt at hijacking democracy as it is an infringement on republicanism (small 'r'). If we had done it this way from the beginning, you wouldn't think twice about it, and it would still be democratic (small 'd'). However, since we are indeed a democratic REPUBLIC, we have always put an emphasis on individual states, and this is actually taking away the state aspect.

 

Also, it is very partisan. Perhaps the GOP should focus more on changing their message, especially on social issues, to win these states back than trying to rig the system.

 

But this is not democratic. Dividing by sections, regardless of the amount of people in each, is completely undemocratic.

[WindyCitySports 407]

But this is not democratic. Dividing by sections, regardless of the amount of people in each, is completely undemocratic.

Then, by definition, the current system is just as undemocratic? I don't think that is what the OP was trying to say.

[Thanatos 2,847]

No no, I mean, if you just divide by sections and don't take into account how many people are in each- that is undemocratic. The current system makes it so that the winner of the state wins the electoral votes. This is more democratic than arbitrarily drawn lines.

 

Shouldn't have said "regardless". Meant "disregarding the amount of people in each."

 

What I'm trying to say is that a suburb with 10 people in it can't be given as much weight as Richmond, VA.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Thanatos19

[oochymp 2,393]

Thanatos, you're forgetting how important federalism is to the American system, there's a reason that each state gets two senators regardless of size, and the United States isn't a true democracy, it's a republic, which is a huge difference and was entirely by design

[Thanatos 2,847]

Arrgh. I am not saying this correctly.

 

What I am trying to say is that the way our system is set up now- with the winner getting all of VA's votes- is way better than a system where we divide up Virginia like its the Senate, with each little district getting a vote.

 

There's also a reason why we have the House of Representatives. What Virginia was trying to do would be to take democracy out of it entirely, and make it completely different.

 

It would be even better than our current system, however, if we did split up each state's electoral votes, at least, in my view.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Thanatos19

[oochymp 2,393]

What I am trying to say is that the way our system is set up now- with the winner getting all of VA's votes- is way better than a system where we divide up Virginia like its the Senate, with each little district getting a vote.

It would be even better than our current system, however, if we did split up each state's electoral votes, at least, in my view.

I may be reading your post wrong, but those two paragraphs seem directly contradictory, unless you're saying split the votes based on the popular vote, like if someone gets 55% of the popular vote then they get 55% of the state's electoral votes, but if you're going to try to simulate the popular vote like that why not just go with the popular vote? I also don't think the electoral system could actually simulate the popular vote, especially in states with fewer electoral votes, how do you split three electoral votes if the popular vote is split 49% to 48% between the major parties with 3% going to minor parties?

[Thanatos 2,847]

I may be reading your post wrong, but those two paragraphs seem directly contradictory, unless you're saying split the votes based on the popular vote, like if someone gets 55% of the popular vote then they get 55% of the state's electoral votes, but if you're going to try to simulate the popular vote like that why not just go with the popular vote? I also don't think the electoral system could actually simulate the popular vote, especially in states with fewer electoral votes, how do you split three electoral votes if the popular vote is split 49% to 48% between the major parties with 3% going to minor parties?

 

I'm saying split the votes that each state has based on the popular vote turnout, yes. I would prefer to just go with the popular vote, but this would be different, in the sense that the electoral college would not be eliminated, just used in a different manner.

 

As for your hypothetical scenario, it would be 2-1 in favor of whomever got the most votes, ignoring the 3%.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

The Great Gerrymander of 2012 - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytopinion

[CARDINAL 205]

So you think it's a bad idea for the ridings to decide votes? That's a lot closer to how we do it in canada, although our ridings are separated by population, roughly 100k to a riding, but exceptions are made for geographical representation and small provinces to have a better representation. In any case It's much closer to popular vote, which is a good start to getting what the American people truly want.

 

This would only work in Canada's and in other parliamentary democracies because the systems are different in that the Head of State is most likely a formal figurehead position and that the government is based solely on political parties, and one either having a minority or majority government that's headed by the leader of the political party with the most seats. With the Presidential System that's used in America and other countries with a similar Presidential System but tweaked for domestic reasons, the President and Parliament (Congress) are more one in the same in that they are both somewhat the Head of Government, in that they are both needed to pass and implement domestic policies. The President being the Head of State is also totally different in that it's not a formal figurehead position, that they have real powers to run a country, and not making decisions based on the "advice" (more of a formal term to give the perception that they have real political powers) of the Prime Minister.

 

I do 100% agree with Reid that ridings or congressional districts should be based on population only, dividing it by the same amount know but on a non-partisan basis. A big part of why there is so much gridlock in Congress all the fuckin time is that a lot of Congressmen and Congresswomen are scared of not the average voter, but their primary voters that usually tend to be more left-wing or right-wing than the average every day voter tends to align themselves politically. Campaign finance reform and total transparency in every aspect of both voting and campaigning are also needed to make the playing field more competitive at all levels and more democratic and fair to the American People!