If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
That appears to be Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus’ philosophy when it comes to rigging elections in the GOP’s favor. In 2012, the strategy was suppressing votes through polling place Photo ID restriction laws, ending same-day voter registration, and clamping down on early voting, among other restrictive legislation. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 25 laws and two executive actions were passed in 19 states over the past two years with the aim of making it harder to vote.
In 2013, the plan appears to be changing the way that votes are counted. Priebus has stepped forward as the latest Republican to support a proposal that would split Wisconsin’s electoral votes by congressional district.
“I think it’s something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at,” Priebus said of the plan, which would deliver two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state, and divide the rest based on who wins each Congressional district.
As Dave Weigel points out at Slate, in 2011 Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled statehouse gerrymandered the state’s districts to create five Republican seats and three Democratic seats. Under the Priebus-backed proposal, Mitt Romney would have won as many electors in Wisconsin as President Obama, despite winning 213,019 fewer votes.
Unsurprisingly, the victims of this plan would be the same urban voters whom an apparently shocked Paul Ryan blamed for the Republican defeat in 2012, and whom most voter suppression efforts in the last election targeted.
According to National Journal’s Reid Wilson, Republicans are already preparing electoral vote-splitting laws in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and hope to eventually expand the push to Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. If the GOP had successfully enacted the laws in all six states before the 2012 election, President Obama’s electoral vote margin of victory would have shrunk [PDF] from 322-206 to 270-268. Under two other proposed reforms — in which the overall statewide winner would not automatically receive two electoral votes — Romney would have been elected president, despite losing the popular vote by 4 percent (nearly 5 million votes).
“If you did the calculation, you’d see a massive shift of electoral votes in states that are blue and fully [in] red control,” a senior Republican who is actively involved in pushing the electoral split scheme told Wilson. “There’s no kind of autopsy and outreach that can grab us those electoral votes that quickly.”
So there you have it: instead of examining why voters overwhelmingly rejected their party in 2012 and adjusting their policies accordingly, some Republicans hope to simply steal the next one, and do it quickly. For voting rights advocates who warned that democracy was being threatened in 2012, there will be no rest for the weary.
Cross-posted at National Memo…
Henry Decker is Associate Editor of The National Memo. Follow him on Twitter: @HenryADecker.
As a liberal follwer of Bradblog from Wisconsin I am for dividing every state by their congressional districts to divide up electoral college votes. I have never liked winner-take-all scenarios. If Wisconsin wants one I will support it, but I wouold ask to make an amendment to the bill that will have to be in the bill’s final form for me to endorse it: Make a non-partisan panel whose job it is to create geographically sensible voting districts. Remove the job of gerry-mandering from the highly partisan legislature. Give it to a panel of people that are majority non-partisan. That way the Republicans would have to play by the same rules. I have lived in different parts of the state and know that small town and rural areas of the state resent that most state monies and projects go to the big cities. Low populated areas are treated as after-thoughts. EC delegates by congressional district gives people in rural areas a say, but the panel to draw those districts would make sure no one is gerry-mandering for partisan benefit.
A survey of Wisconsin voters showed 71% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 81% among Democrats, 67% among independents, and 63% among Republicans.
By age, support was 68% among 18-29 year olds, 62% among 30-45 year olds, 72% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 80% among women and 61% among men.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.
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
This would be evidence to support Jackie Chan’s description of the United States as “most corrupt country in the world.”
Now would be a good time to get rid of the EC altogether. It is pathetic and is the main reason elections are so easily stolen.
Alex,
You are either a conservative imposter or exactly the type of liberal Rance Priebus and his compatriots is hoping for. You should enthusiastically and belligerently oppose any proposal in your state alone to change the electoral college system. It can only take away your voice, and would only reduce the possibility of the popular vote winner to gain the presidency. That is the whole idea of this latest conservative agenda.
The national electoral college system can only be changed by constitutional amendment, which would be a long and arduous process, and considering the political ramifications, is nearly impossible to envision. Therefore, it gives the conservatives impetus to change it within individual states, where it could only help them.
Reread the original story, and please become better informed about this issue before actually voting on it.
Understand, unless a voter is voting on a US constitutional amendment, a vote to change the electoral college in any state will on the average disenfranchise that very same voter. In addition, most states would have their citizen’s collective voting power diminished, so it is unlikely that such an amendment would ever pass.
Regarding your gerrymandering statement, you similarly have to be careful what you wish for. Diminishing the polital role gives more say to the judiciary. This may just make the judiciary more political.
The national electoral college system can be changed without a constitutional amendment.
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, without federal constitutional amendments.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.
The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
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, 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.
In the 2012 election, only 9 states and their voters mattered under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. 9 states determined the election. Candidates did not care about 80% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning was even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states – that include 10 of the original 13 states – are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
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
The “National Popular Vote” compact does not change the national electoral college system. It is a bloc of states voting within the electoral college which for now have deemed that it is more important the president be chosen by national popular vote than it is that the state’s majority has it’s own say.
It is an unstable bloc, in that a majority of any state’s voters could only be disappointed by it’s impact, and could pull out either before or after a given election. There are so many wildcards that it is more likely to end up backfiring than helping the groups that now support it. It does have a modestly higher likelihood of gaining the needed support than does a constitutional amendment, but it still isn’t likely to come to pass (Of course, if the supporters could get Ohio to sign on, that would be a difference maker).
These fascist bastards will rig the attempt to rig the election to gain control over it’s citizens who are turning against them at an alarming rate.
The smarmy prickl Priebus is trying to turn the country into a dictatorship. What is anyone doing about it? Rachel Maddow’s show kept me awake last night. None of the other problems will matter if these treasonous bitches rig the election by nuclear gerrymandering.
Where’s Eric Holder? Where’s the DNC? This should be disturbing news on a nation wide scale. We blink & before we know it, it’s done.
The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
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.
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.
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.
The National Popular Vote bill says: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”
This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
â— national nominating conventions,
â— fall general election campaign period,
â— Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
â— meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
â— counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
â— scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action
The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”
In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”
The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.
Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
Thanks for all the great work!
I think Gina did well in summing up the Electoral College.
Through increasing our awareness and educating ourselves we can vote for third party candidates and write to our representative, and sign, start , and join petitions.
We the people, more specifically a proletariat united, will end the electoral college.