Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
brookiecookie87
We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander [Rig] its way back to the White House
January 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House


Still reeling from their second straight presidential loss to Barack Obama, Republicans are working to make drastic changes to how electoral college votes are allocated in key swing states.

Republicans in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all proposed scrapping the “winner take all” electoral vote system in favor of plans that would reward the GOP’s recent gerrymandering. The six states considering the varied plans are all swing states that have gone for Barack Obama twice now, and others have been hard fought but ultimately gone blue for even longer.

The plans vary. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers want to siphon off a handful of electoral votes for the runner-up candidate–which has been the Republican since 1992. In other states, the proposal calls for the overall winner of the popular vote to get two votes, while the rest of the votes are distributed by congressional district. That plan is already in place in Maine and Nebraska.

What does that look like when implemented in these swing states? Here’s how it would’ve played out in the 2012 election in a handful of states controlled by Republicans.

In Florida, where Romney lost by only 1%, Obama would have lost even bigger: Romney would have picked up more than half the state’s electoral votes.

FLORIDA RIGGED

In Ohio, where Obama eked out a 2% lead, Romney would have won two-thirds of the state’s votes.

OHIO RIGGED

In Wisconsin, Romney would have won half the state’s votes, despite losing the overall vote by 7%.

WISCONSIN RIGGED

And Romney would no longer have lost his home state of Michigan, even though he lost the popular vote there by 9%. Instead, he’d have picked up nine electoral votes.

MICHIGAN RIGGED

Pennsylvania’s plan, which allocates votes based on the overall percentage, gives Romney his smallest advantage, with only eight extra electoral votes. That’s still a nice bonus for a guy who lost the state by 5% and therefore lost all 20 electoral votes.

PENNSYLVANIA RIGGED

The plan advanced this week by a Virginia Senate subcommittee is even more lopsided, allocating the two extra votes not to the popular vote winner, but to the winner of the most congressional districts. The result? Romney picks up 9 of the state’s electoral votes, despite losing the state’s popular vote by 3%.

VIRGINIA RIGGED

If the plans currently on the table were implemented in these six states alone, Romney picks up another 60 electoral votes, bringing his total to 266 nationwide, making the race much closer but not ultimately taking the victory away from Barack Obama.

An analysis by Alan Abramowitz for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics found that if a Maine—or Nebraska—style system had been in place nationwide for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have defeated Barack Obama, 276 electoral votes to 262 electoral votes, despite losing the popular vote by 4%. If the plan being pushed in Virginia became the law of the land nationwide, that difference would be even more stark.

This new plan reflects the fact that in all these states, Republicans are in control of the state house and have been since 2010. The successful pro-Republican gerrymandering that took place that year didn’t just protect the Republican control of the House of Representatives, but also laid the groundwork for taking back the presidency. If these plans, which are by most accounts legal (although they could be challenged in court), were to become law, it would be difficult for Democrats to win the presidency in 2016, even if they win by millions of votes.

Replies

  • Imacakebaker
    January 25, 2013 at 9:45 PM

    Its the liberal version of Fox News. 

    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Again. The source you provided gives the same exact information. I guess you just realized you are wrong. And instead of trying to debate the point you decide to attack the source.

    This very much reminds me when sources were saying that President Obama might win and Mitt Romney might lose and every conservative/Republican was coming out saying, "Your source is bias so it can't be true!".

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    Never mind.. its from MSNBC, lol..




  • Euphoric
    January 25, 2013 at 9:46 PM

     bump

  • brookiecookie87
    January 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM

    Let me simplify it for you.

    Say only 100 people live in a state.

    Say 59 people live in the city  and 41 live outside of it.

    If they voted and the 59 people voted for President X and 41 people voted for President Y-President X would win because he got more votes.

    The same thing happens in states. Yes-The cities have more people in them. Does that mean their vote should count less because they live closer together? Or do the people who live outside of the city should have a vote worth more because they don't live in a city?

    That doesn't make sense.

    The electoral college system in general doesn't make too much sense. It should be 1 person =1 vote and the person with the most votes win.

    But an electoral college system where the person with the least amount of votes can win the majority of the electoral colleges, and the person with the least amount of votes in general can win the Presidency just doesn't make sense.

    It's un-democratic. And undermines democracy as a whole.

    It is great for a Political party who thinks they might not get the popular vote but still wants the White House though.


    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    You are right.  It was 7% in 2008.

    It makes no sense that the whole country was red, and a few cities were blue, and blue won.  Maybe we should just let the big cities vote.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    You really are in denial. I went to the link you just gave. I clicked on Michigan.

    President Obama 2,564,569 votes. 54.2%
    Mitt Romney           2,115,256 votes. 44.7%

    54.2 - 44.7 = 9.5.

    That's using the site/source YOU gave.

    President won by 9%. It doesn't make sense to create a system where someone can win by 9% and still lose in the electoral college.

    Realistically everyone should get 1 vote. And the person with the most votes win.

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    Where did you get this "article?"

    Obama didn't win Michigan by 9%, he won by 7%.  The numbers are wrong.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/michigan-election-results-2012_n_2047670.html

    Each county should get X amount of ec votes.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    So lets get this right.

    In Michigan where President Obama won the popular vote by 9%, you think it makes sense that Mitt Romney should get the most Electoral College Votes (Effectively winning the state)?

    That doesn't make sense. And again that is OPPOSITE of representing the people.

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    Again.. Did you see how the states were majority RED?  Where was their voice??  

    Its ok to only win 4 counties and tall ALL the votes?

    Quoting LucyMom08:

    How so?

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    It is more representative.  

    Quoting LucyMom08:

    You think it's fair because a Republican would have won, or the 'system' is better?



    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    I think its fair.  Did you notice all of those states were red.











  • brookiecookie87
    January 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM

    Fox News is biased. MSNBC is bias.

    But we aren't talking opinions here. We are talking numbers.

    MSNBC isn't saying, "The GOP are poopyheads and are trying to destroy the country". They are pointing out the outcome of the GOP Proposal. The numbers check out.

    I do agree that MSNBC is bias. I disagree that their bias changes the reality of the situation provided though.

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    Its the liberal version of Fox News. 

    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Again. The source you provided gives the same exact information. I guess you just realized you are wrong. And instead of trying to debate the point you decide to attack the source.

    This very much reminds me when sources were saying that President Obama might win and Mitt Romney might lose and every conservative/Republican was coming out saying, "Your source is bias so it can't be true!".

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    Never mind.. its from MSNBC, lol..






  • Imacakebaker
    January 25, 2013 at 9:56 PM

    Would you have supported this after the Gore/Bush election?

    I would have to go back to the maps, but I think Gore would have won under this system.

    You supported Gore not Bush right?

  • brookiecookie87
    January 25, 2013 at 10:07 PM

    I have always and will always be against the electoral college.

    I think it had it's place in the past. But in our day and age it doesn't have a place. 1 person should be 1 vote. And the person with the most votes should win.

    That would be accurate and represent everyone and isn't impacted by who is in office, who is drawing districts or who is in power.

    I have always been against gerrymandering (No matter which party is doing it-Democrats do it to obviously).

    But when you mix electoral colleges with gerrymandering you get something that is worst than the sum of it's parts.

    Quoting Imacakebaker:

    Would you have supported this after the Gore/Bush election?

    I would have to go back to the maps, but I think Gore would have won under this system.

    You supported Gore not Bush right?



  • Naturewoman4
    January 26, 2013 at 12:39 AM

    At this point, I sure hope they win anyway they can.  If not, the Dems. are going to totally destroy this Country.  But, then again, they already have.  Good news though, I only have to put up with Obama just for another 4 yrs.  That it's over FINALLY!  Hopefully, Biden won't run & won't win.  Otherwise, it's like having another Obama.  Either way it doesn't matter anymore, because this Country is screwed! 

  • jessilin0113
    January 26, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    So they are basically admitting they can't win on their platform, so they have to rig the system.  Nice. 

  • meriana
    by meriana
    January 26, 2013 at 8:02 AM

    There was a bit on the news about this last night. Sounds to me like the Republican party not only wants to win even if they must change the rules in such a way as to give them an advantage to accomplish that but they also want to set up something of a dynasty. It pretty much looks like that under a system like that, the Republicans would always win no matter who was running or who won the popular vote. Instead of a two party system, (let alone a 3rd party like the Libertarian) we'd effectively end up with a one party system.

  • brookiecookie87
    January 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM

    I never seen anyone so blinded by their bias that they would throw away any resemblance of a democracy their country has so their party will win.

    Actually I am wrong. You are showing the thinking that the GOP members have. They will gladly gerrymander their parties way into Office. And if it was up to them (and you apparently) they would gladly destroy the democracy we have so they can win despite who the country actually votes for.

    Because with the new system democracy would be gone. The popular vote would in no way determine who is President. It doesn't now but at least it is pretty darn close.

    And I hate to break it to you. But our country has been screwed for awhile. Do you remember when Bush was leaving Office? (I am not blaming Bush either. It's a fundamental problem we are having with Capitalism).

    Right now all the money is held at the very tip top of our country. The middle class is disappearing and that is the problem.

    Capitalism needs a strong, big, middle class to function smoothly and properly (You could almost think of the middle class as the lubrication that keeps the system moving). The middle class should be able to split a little off for poverty and a few for wealth. But the middle class is so non-existent that 250k is considered middle class and that is in the top 3% of our country. It's backwards.

    It doesn't matter who is in Office this system will persist.


    Quoting Naturewoman4:

    At this point, I sure hope they win anyway they can.  If not, the Dems. are going to totally destroy this Country.  But, then again, they already have.  Good news though, I only have to put up with Obama just for another 4 yrs.  That it's over FINALLY!  Hopefully, Biden won't run & won't win.  Otherwise, it's like having another Obama.  Either way it doesn't matter anymore, because this Country is screwed! 



Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN