What happens if the GOP uses Electoral College gerrymandering to steal the 2016 election?

[First Speaker]

Consider the following scenario. Hillary Clinton gets 75,000,000 votes, give or take. Her opponent, Ted Cruz, gets 67,000,000. Under the "normal" rules of the Electoral College, she wins the election--say, 305-233. But thanks to the GOP fucking with the EC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and a few other states, they steal enough EC votes to "win" the election, 275-263. The Electoral College meets, and "ratifies" this result. The GOP Congress "ratifies" the result, as well. A Supreme Court challenge--hah. Guess how *that* turns out. And meanwhile, the media tells the Dems to "respect the process", and begs Hillary not to be a "sore loser". The Right goes on a "get over it" rampage all over the media.
Am I being unrealistic here? One would think that not even our corrupt system could be *this* corrupt. That this couldn't happen. But of course, it could happen. In all seriousness, I would hope that America would go up in flames if this happens. That the Dems would *tell* the GOP, and the nation, in advance, that the country would go up in flames if the Presidency were stolen this blatantly. If the Dems did "accept" this, it would be the end of liberal democracy in the US. But I'm 99% certain that they would...

[upaloopa]

1. It is a real possibility. It seems only a few of

us care enough to vote. If we lose democracy, if not already, it will be because most don't care.

[WillowTree]

2. OK. I'll bite.

What would be the process by which the Electoral College would be gerrymandered? How would they go about that?

[arcane1]

4. They're trying to change the laws in some states so that the loser gets EC votes too

[Rstrstx]

7. That's already the case in Nebraska in Maine

I believe they give two votes for the overall winner of the state but if another candidate wins one of their congressional districts that person would get the vote. This happened in Nebraska in 2008, when Obama got 1 electoral vote from a district around Omaha.

There's nothing wrong with this constitutionally, but the only realistic way the repubs could pull it off would be to implement it only in the blue and swing states while making sure reliable Republican states keep a "winner take all" system. I believe that was mentioned about 5-6 years ago but it went nowhere and I don't think either party would want to go down that road if they thought it through, the backlash would be extreme.

It sounds like the OP is referring to faithless electors, which have happened a few times but have never changed the result of an election. The winning party gets to choose their electors so I don't see how the Republicans could rig that end.

[JonLP24]

18. OP is referring to a recent bill proposal in Michigan

What makes this a little different is that Republicans went with a split among Congressional districts 5 years ago. Republicans winning Michigan 9-5 but losing the popular vote would get them laughed out of office. This bill is a much better proposal and I could support something like this across the country but if they are splitting votes in blue states that doesn't help Democrats. It is better designed to appeal to voters.

What may hold this back that it did last time is are they willing to sacrifice their careers for the Republican party? This isn't as bad as the congressional district one so they have a better shot and a Democrat in legislature noted they snuck a bill by in a lame duck session with similar public statements from Senate leader & governor.

Republicans have large majorities in the state House and Senate, and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who just won reelection, is term limited so doesn’t have to worry about a possible voter backlash. Participants at a Michigan Republican Party Convention overwhelmingly supported the concept of splitting electoral votes in 2013.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/whats_cooking_in_lame_duck_ele.html

State Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, introduced a new bill Thursday to change the way Michigan's electoral college votes are allocated. Under the new bill, the presidential winner of the state's popular vote would get at least 9 of the state's 16 electoral votes. The winner would receive an additional electoral vote for every 1.5% above the 50% vote mark. For instance, if the winner got 51.5% of the statewide vote, they would get 10 of the state's 16 electoral votes. If they won 53% of the statewide vote they'd get 11 electoral votes.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/13/michigan-bill-electoral-votes-president/18970077/

[merrily]

76. 157 faithless electors, but not all in the same election.

[yeoman6987]

54. Already working well in Nebraska and Maine

The country is still here.

[mvymvy]

78. Maine and Nebraska Voters Support a National Popular Vote

Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections.

Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

In Maine, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

In Nebraska, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.

Obvious partisan machinations like these should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. They award electoral votes based on

who wins a congressional district instead of winner take all.

This would allow severely gerrymandered states like NC to have a majority vote for a Dem, while still awarding most of its EVs to the GOP. NC has 13 CDs of which only 4 are held by Dems. Under the old system, if the Dem wins the popular vote, he gets the states 15 EVs (13 reps + 2 senators). Under this "reformed" system, he would get only 6 EVs. 1 for each CD won, plus 2 for winning the state.

The plan is to make change the law only in states where it would help the GOP.

[dsc]

51. actually in NC the Dem would only get five

we are split 10 R 3 D now.

[Kelvin Mace]

60. I was counting the one open seat in the 12th

as a Dem seat.

[dsc]

67. it is but we lost the 7th

McIntyre retired and the dem who ran lost.

[yeoman6987]

55. It actually would help Democratic Party in NC

Considering they lost EVERY electoral vote in 2012.

[Kelvin Mace]

58. But probably not in 2016 when demographics

are likely to turn the state blue again.

[dsc]

68. actually it depends

on what their chances of winning NC actually are. Under the change a win is 12 while a loss is 10 giving an expected value of 11 if the odds of winning are even. 11.2 if the odds are 60 percent GOP, and 11.5 if the odds are 75 percent. The other way win 15 loss 0 gives an expected value of 7.5 at 50 percent, 9 at 60 percent, and 11.25 at 75 percent. Meaning that somewhere above 75 percent is where the tipping point is where the GOP loses under the change. I think our odds of winning NC is better than 25 percent, not worse.

[KamaAina]

14. Here are a couple of examples

Michigan: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025815713

Pennsylvania: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817145

Note that this is only happening in states that vote Dem in presidential elections but, thanks to gerrymandered districts, are controlled by repukes.

[randys1]

28. Exactly, this is stealing the election and IF the american people wake up someday

they might want to stop all the illegal actions being taken by these terrorists

like voter ID and this new twist

Republicans cant win the WH and they know it, without cheating.

WHEN do we say enough?

How do we inform the people what is happening to them?

you see, there is the rub, since ALL Media is owned by rightwing oligarchs, we are truly fucked

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. What is illegal about a state changing the way it allocates EVs?

I'm 100% against it, but these cries of "illegal!!" and "stealing elections" by changing the EV allocation don't make sense, IMO.

[randys1]

35. I am not sure if I said it was illegal, I do say voter ID is illegal because it is

this new twist may not be illegal but it will be done only where it helps republicans and be done by republicans

I am WAY past wondering why they do what they do, I know why...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

39. Sorry, I took this statement

"like voter ID and this new twist " to mean that you thought the potential EV changes are illegal.

My bad.

[Yupster]

66. A state doesn't even have to have an election for president

The state legislature can just award the electoral votes to who it wants to.

South Carolina had its first vote for President in 1868. Before that the state legislature just chose them.

[CrispyQ]

3. It's not like they haven't stolen it before.

I expect all kinds of dirty tricks. They can't win if they have to play fair.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. Changing the way EC votes are allocated is legal

It would suck, but it's perfectly legal, and as pissed as I would be, I surely wouldn't consider it stealing the election.

[villager]

6. Of course it'd be theft, if they once again lose the popular vote, but install the losing candidate

n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Like it or not, and I don't

The candidate with the most EC votes is the winning candidate, regardless of the popular vote.

[villager]

13. And like it or not, having that usurpation happen routinely is not sustainable in a "democracy"

and eventually, something will give way.

And it won't be pretty.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Whatever n/t

[villager]

17. Okay n/t

[leftynyc]

8. Perhaps all those who

stayed home would rethink the wisdom of that. As for what to do? It's legal, we can't do anything.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Perhaps the party should re-think the wisdom

of fielding candidates who run from the party platform and collude with the GOP (See Mary Landrieu, Alison Grimes, Kay Hagan, Andrew Cuomo, etc). Perhaps the party leaders should re-think alienating the Black and Latino base?

"You have to vote for us, you have no choice." is not a very motivating campaign slogan.

[tritsofme]

11. It would be an incredibly unjust outcome, but not an illegal one

However I feel very confident saying it will not happen.

But to play along with your hypothetical, what would you expect Democrats or Hillary to do in this situation? Assuming the state laws were duly passed, and the election was certified, there would be no legal recourse.

[KamaAina]

16. Bush v. Gore was not "illegal" either

at least not according to SCOTUS, the final arbiters of legality.

[First Speaker]

32. There was no "legal" recourse to slavery. Or Jim Crow laws.

John Brown showed what could be done about slavery. And had Southern blacks armed themselves after 1876, and demanded that the Constitution of the United States, including the 14th and 15th amendments, be respected, America would be a better place today. If the GOP should play games like this with the Electoral College indefinitely, American democracy will not survive, whether the result is "legal" or not. As for what would happen in 2016, in my hypothetical--I dunno. The Phillipine people showed in 1986 what *could* happen. If I were the Dem candidate, I would take the election into the streets, no matter the consequences.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Even if they lost according to the law? n/t

[Robbins]

19. If they get away with doing this

United states will become permeant one party state.No Democrat will ever win again.

Elections will just be show to make those who support Dems think they have a voice.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. First, while this could happen, I don't see it

States don't want to give up those big blocks of EC votes.

Second, it's a bit of hyperbole to say that no Democrat would ever win under this. Had Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida all been under this system in 2012, President Obama still would have won 294-244.

No question it would suck, but I don't see it happening, and if it does, I certainly don't see it as the end of any Democrat ever winning the Presidency again.

As to the OP's scenario, there would be no appeal to the SCOTUS, as there would be no grounds for such an appeal. States have the right to do this, odious as it may be.

[Robbins]

25. Add gutting of voting rights acts and voter Id

as well as other tricks by GOP Governors and state houses It will be almost impossible for any democrat to ever win again.

With the continued destrucon by unions helped by centrist democrats and their free trade sellout and more bad news for dems.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. Sorry, I'm not buying it

This is an "agree to disagree" situation.

[randys1]

29. Will Women have to start dying by the hundreds or thousands in back alleys before

the average american who doesnt bother to vote pays attention?

If it happens my mother will never forgive me for not doing EVERYTHING in my power to stop it.

[Katashi_itto]

45. Yep, but Americans will ignore that. Lots of "Good Germans"

[former9thward]

20. It is completely unrealistic.

First, gerrymandering has nothing to do with electoral votes. The state vote determines who gets the electoral vote and you can't gerrymander the state.

Second, elections do not happen in a vacuum. When certain states fall a certain way others which are similar do also. The electoral vote follows the popular vote except in close elections. An election of 75 million to 67 million is not close and neither would the electoral vote.

[brooklynite]

23. Actually you can...

...to the extent that Electoral Votes are allocated by Congressional District (PA was proposing 1 for each CD plus 2 for the Statewide winner) and the Congressional Districts are Gerrymandered.

[former9thward]

27. No.

No, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, the electoral votes are not allocated by Congressional district. All the votes in the state are added up and that is who gets the total electoral vote. Gerrymandering has no effect.

[brooklynite]

30. The discussion is about gerrymandering in the states proposing new reallocation of EV

[former9thward]

36. The discussion was about conservatives doing it.

The only places it could hurt Ds is in states Ds control. If conservatives want to do it, such as NE, let them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. I think you need to look again

Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida...all states controlled by Rs and all states where this could hurt Ds.

[former9thward]

46. The OP described a 75-67 million election.

In that type of election all those states would be D.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. It's called exaggeration

Never mind.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. This thread is about potential attempts to change that in some states n/t

[creeksneakers2]

61. They want to gerrymander the whole country

They want to make the blue state proportional and the red states winner take all.

[socialist_n_TN]

62. THANK YOU! I don't know if people were being deliberately obtuse or not........

but this is EXACTLY what the OP was talking about. Democratic states are allocated differently than Republican states with the advantage to the Republicans.

IMO, this could easily happen.

[former9thward]

70. How would it happen?

And no, D states are not allocated differently than R states. The only states that split their electoral votes are Maine and Nebraska. They are R states.

[socialist_n_TN]

95. States that are currently ruled by Republicans that have historically been Dem......

change to proportional representation while currently Republican states that have historically be Republican stay on the winner take all EC votes. This would dilute potential Dem votes in the EC by splitting them up with the Republican who win in certain Congressional districts in that state. Add those R votes to the R votes from winner take all states and the Rs have an EC advantage.

[former9thward]

96. So why had his only occurred in R states?

[socialist_n_TN]

97. Because it's a plan to dilute Democratic votes in the EC.....

And wasn't Maine at one time something of a Dem state? At least in presidential elections. It's also a fairly new phenomena I think.

Or don't you think that the Republicans will do ANYTHING they can get away with in order to win?

[former9thward]

98. I have little respect for parties as moral institutions.

I think both major parties will do ANYTHING they can get away with in order to win. I am from Chicago and I spent my life seeing the Democratic Party doing the most despicable things in order to win (against progressives, Rs were not a factor). I would think anyone who is a socialist would understand that.

[socialist_n_TN]

99. Well sure. But this is kind of blatant even for Republicans......

But not unexpected. The question is what are the Dems going to do about it?

[former9thward]

69. Now how would they do that?

Be specific.

[creeksneakers2]

87. By making the blue states proportional

and making the red states winner take all.

[former9thward]

88. How would Rs make blue states proportional?

If they are blue then Ds control it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

89. States with red state legislatures

but that normally go blue for Presidential elections.

Such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.

[former9thward]

90. Well the only states that have done it so far are R states.

Nebraska and Maine, well Maine is purple.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

91. Yes, I know that

The point is that it's being talked about and potentially brought up in other states now.

Did you even bother to read the OP?

[former9thward]

92. I did read the OP.

But I don't take hysteria politics seriously. It comes ever 2 years.

[mvymvy]

64. Some numbers

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it COULD only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only 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!

[former9thward]

72. No it could not happen.

You really think one party is going to take the plurality of CA, NY and TX? You are playing games.

[mvymvy]

79. Current System In No Way Ensures Electoral Vote Follows Popular Vote

I was responding to "The electoral vote follows the popular vote except in close elections."

There is nothing in the current system of 48 state winner-take-all laws that ensures the electoral vote follows the popular vote.

It is only because of the current political reality in the 11 largest states that the situation doesn't arise. The 11 largest states, in terms of recent presidential elections, HAPPEN to split relatively equally. The 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). 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).

[former9thward]

82. The electoral vote was never intended to follow exactly the popular vote.

The people who wrote the Constitution did not intend that. And they were not especially fans of the popular vote anyway except in the House elections to some extent.

[mvymvy]

83. The Constitution Gives States Exclusive and Plenary Authority For How to Award Their Electoral Votes

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of 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 Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace 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 later 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 voter 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 voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College 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. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place 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).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

[brooklynite]

22. Out of curiosity, who here complained when Obama "won" an EV in Nebraska in 2008?

Every State has the right to allocate its EV in the way it sees fit. It's not "stealing" and wouldn't remotely be open to a SC challenge. That said, it reflects the importance of paying attention to Governor and State Legislative races, which is something my wife and I did in the last cycle.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. So very well said, on all counts! n/t

[still_one]

38. I believe the electoral college shouldn't be repealed, and we should be using the popular vote

[Warren Stupidity]

50. So you would be fine with the Michigan example?

Where a majority of the voters could vote for the Democratic candidate in Michigan but the electoral votes would skew something like 12-5 for the Republican candidate because of gerrymandered districts?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. I wouldn't like it

But liking it or not liking it is irrelevant - it's still perfectly legal.

[brooklynite]

59. Not at all...

...I just don't subscribe to the notion that such actions constitute stealing...

[mvymvy]

80. This Push by Republicans for Change ONLY in States that Voted Dem Recently, is Blatantly Partisan

Republican legislators who want to split state electoral votes in states that have recently voted Democratic in presidential elections, do not want to split electoral votes in states that recently voted Republican in presidential elections.

Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.

Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

Obvious partisan machinations like the various schemes proposed by Republicans, should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.

[still_one]

37. Get rid of the fricking electoral college. Popular vote period

[mvymvy]

65. National Popular Vote Bill - 61% of the way of going 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.

Instead, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would make every vote, everywhere, politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. 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, like Michigan, that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of 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 Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, 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 every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Obvious partisan machinations, like those proposed by Lund, should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, is needed now more than ever.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states (including Michigan in 2008) with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

[Turbineguy]

40. They'll have to steal it.

They certainly can't win it. But more than likely they will take it on dirty tricks and voter suppression. They may not want to risk a SCOTUS challenge.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. A SCOTUS challenge on what? n/t

[hrmjustin]

56. There is unfortunately no legal grounds to challenge this.

[CanonRay]

42. Then Democracy is dead in America

and the Republican party and their rich friends will have killed it.

[davidn3600]

44. Ariticle II, Section I of the constitution says that is perfectly legal

Right from the Constitution...
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

So the legislature of each state directs how it's own electoral votes are won and/or divided up. The idea that every state gives the winner of that state ALL its votes is based on a law or amendment to the state's constitution that can be easily and legally changed at any time. In fact, Maine and Nebraska already divide up their electoral votes by House district and have been doing it for years.

The Constitution gives the federal government no authority in this process. It's a state right. It would take an amendment to the Federal constitution to change this.

[DCBob]

48. We would be royally screwed... most likely for decades.

Those complaining about Democrats now would then have something legitimate to complain about.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Then they will have swept the table.

It is a very real possibility. Don't worry though, the BOG/HCG will be explaining why it is the left's fault.

[hrmjustin]

53. The only way to stop this is to reverse it in a statewide ballot referendum. The courts can't stop

it.

[grasswire]

57. I'm wondering if the GOP is above cash for votes

They've done everything else.

[fujiyama]

63. What happens?

In a country where only 1/3 of eligible voters cast votes this last election, and where in a really good year, just over 60% did (2008), don't expect anything to change. Democracy is on its knees in this country, but the reality is it has always been a joke. The SC showed that laws don't matter in 2000 when they picked the president. And with Citizens United, policy writing is basically auctioned off.

I will always vote, but it feels like a losing battle, less because of the ass holes that run the system, but because of the apathetic and incompetent people that seem just fine allowing it happen.

Have at it people. You sure do love your incumbents, especially you brilliant and enlightened residents of fucking Iowa that have elected a governor to his sixth (!) term. And this is a state that for some bizarre and idiotic reason has a huge influence on who the nominee is. Sorry Iowa, but you really pissed me off, replacing a decent (but once again completely complacent and I hate to say it, but clearly old incumbent) with a raving bat shit lunatic of a senator.

[NYC Liberal]

71. Even easier way: change laws to gave state legislatures pick electors

And yes it's possible. The method of choosing electors is up to each state and a popular vote is not required

[mvymvy]

84. National Popular Vote Bill - 61% of the way of going into effect

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

It mandates that
"Each member state shall conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President of the United States."

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions (including New York) with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

[JCMach1]

73. Then Blue states need to quickly finish the fix that gives majority Electoral college votes to the

Popular Vote winner

[SickOfTheOnePct]

74. Good thought

But I'm not sure there are enough blue states left to make up the necessary 105 votes.

[mvymvy]

81. Support is Strong Among Republican and Independent Voters

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.
In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

AK – 70%, AR – 80%, AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CO – 68%, CT – 74%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, ID – 77%, KY- 80%, MA – 73%, ME – 77%, MI – 73%, MN – 75%, MO – 70%, MS – 77%, MT – 72%, NC – 74%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NM– 76%, NV – 72%, NY – 79%, OH – 70%, OK – 81%, OR – 76%, PA – 78%, RI – 74%, SC – 71%, SD – 71%, TN – 83%, UT – 70%, VA – 74%, VT – 75%, WA – 77%, WI – 71%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

On March 25, in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in “National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:” "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:

Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes who served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 250 electoral votes, including one house in Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

NationalPopularVote

[TheKentuckian]

75. I don't get the crime factor. In fact, I favor reflective representation.

The winner take all system is disenfranchisement. Hell, I think it should just be the popular vote but failing that the votes in the electoral college should be split proportionally.

Now, granted it shouldn't just be Michigan but not also Arizona. Shouldn't be California but not Texas. However, it is controlled at the state level and I don't see how a state making it's vote reflective of it's population is crooked, I didn't vote for Bush so why should he get my vote?

[mvymvy]

85. Republicans legislators do not want to split electoral votes in red states

What is going on now, is that Republicans legislators who want to split electoral votes in blue states, do not want to split them in red states.

These obvious unprincipled partisan attempts to make the current system even less fair, makes the case for the National Popular Vote plan all the stronger.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant, it would not do this in practice.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and
It would not make every vote equal.

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.

It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

[TheKentuckian]

94. What crime is that again? The rest is an argument of why you are against, each of which is possible

now making your case pretty weak.

I don't get inclusion of 2000, what happened is instead of a tie Gore won the popular vote and didn't even get a chance to take it to Congress. What was the improvement here with the existing system?

You also state an opinion as fact or if it is fact, you don't bother to substantiate it any way while ignoring that it doesn't logically follow. Why wouldn't reflective representation match with the popular vote?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. You're absolutely right, there is no crime factor n/t

[ZombieHorde]

77. Then the Republicans would win many more Presidential elections.

Conservatives would be happy once every four years, but most of them would have their personal lives harmed in some ways, such as their financial situation and their personal health. But on the plus side, for them, they wouldn't be as concerned about losing their guns and the war on Christmas.

[AnalystInParadise]

93. This plan is not stealing

It is shitty, amoral and duplicitous, nothing we don't expect the pukes to do, but it is perfectly legal and not stealing of any kind.