What does the Republican Party Want?

Dan Miller's Blog ^ | January 12, 2013 | Dan Miller

[central_va]

Civil War II between the Red and the Blue states.

[central_va]

If the 17th amendment had never happened the Senate would be Republican and more conservative. FACT.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It might be more Republican at present, but how’d you like a Senate full of country clubber big gubmint accommodationists ? That’s what you’d have. Ted Cruz ? Nope. Kentucky would’ve been sending Democrats, because the KY House is still majority Democrat. No Rand Paul but those typical Southern-fried “fake” Conservative Democrats of the Manchin (or worse) vintage... if not Robert Byrd.

Of course, you being a Virginian, I can understand your frustration having a GOP legislature with two execrable urban leftist Democrat Senators and that the 17th would stop that dead in its tracks. Problem is, again, you’d have John Warner types or more like my 2 Senators in TN, the epitome of the party establishment (and those two would be easily elected by the state legislature, no question, though we would not have had a GOP Senator elected from the 1870s until 2009 with the 17th repeal — and you guys wouldn’t have had them from the Readjuster period until the ‘90s).

[central_va]

It is not a zero sum game. If the 17th were repealed then state politics would get the attention it deserves, most people don’t even know the name of the state representative. Repealing the 17th would change that if that state rep was selecting your US Senator.

[BillyBoy]

>> If the 17th amendment had never happened the Senate would be Republican and more conservative. FACT. <<

Nope. Saying it's a FACT doesn't it one (another anti-17th amendment conservative told me it was a "FACT" the Senate would have never passed Obamacare if there was no 17th, and that certainly wasn't a fact since the majority of state legislatures in America were Democrat at the time Obamacare was being considered by the Senate, and they would have thus appointed socialist Obama flunkies)

If you're talking about the overall Senate makeup since 1913, it definitely wouldn't be a "FACT" since Democrats had firm control of a majority of state legislatures at numerous times since 1913.

If you're talking about this exact moment, yes, there would be more Republicans in the Senate at present than there are under the popular vote method. But it is not a fact they'd be more conservative. The GOP establishment party bosses in most states are warily of "tea party types" they can't "control", and the vast majority of appointed Senators chosen by state government has been mostly low-key, don't-rock-the-boat party hacks and yes-men. I believe the most likely scenario is most of the appointed Republican Senators would be less conservative than their elected counterparts.

[BillyBoy]

>> Repealing the 17th would change that if that state rep was selecting your US Senator. <<

My state rep would have no say whatsoever in selecting my US Senator. Illinois Speaker of the House Mike Madigan would pick one behind closed doors, and she would duly rubber stamp whoever he told her to.

[central_va]

Well because YOU live in a corrupt state doesn’t mean we all have to see it YOUR way from Yankeeland. I couldn’t live there, It is a sh1t hole up there.

[BillyBoy]

>> state politics would get the attention it deserves, most people don’t even know the name of the state representative. Repealing the 17th would change that <<

I live in a gerrymandered state house district that is 80% suburban and 20% urban. The 20% urban portion are improvised black neighborhoods full of violence that vote 95% Dem and have nothing in common with the rest of the district but have an huge influence in the results overall because their overwhelmingly Dem tilt.

Why would repeal of the 17th cause them to "pay more attention" to who the candidates are? Right now their own concern is locating which one has a "D" next to their name. (Ideally they'd prefer a black state rep., however due to demographics, Madigan ensures a white suburban Dem in the RAT candidate).

[BillyBoy]

>> Well because YOU live in a corrupt state doesn’t mean we all have to see it YOUR way from Yankeeland. <<

Look at the 2008 and 2012 election results and tell me how many of the states voted AGAINST the communist upsurger? It seems a clear majority of them did, including your "conservative" state. Why is that? Just because you want to PRETEND most states aren't corrupt and filled with vote fraud, doesn't make that a reality.

[central_va]

Who cares? Illinois is going to have 2 liberal Senators anyway. You live in a one party corrupt state, similar to most Yankee states, so quit imposing your crap on the rest of us. Repealing the 17th would vastly improve the Senate for most of the non corrupt sates. My advice get out there. Move to Texas or somewhere south. Shouting from inside the toilet that is smell like crap is stupid, get out of the toilet.

[Impy]

>>Under the "1 man, 1 vote" rule, you can't design the Illinois Senate to look like the U.S. Senate and be based on geographic interests<<

I hate that. While I may or may not agree with 1 man 1 vote in principle it would be extremely helpful to us to have State Senates based on areas of geographic interest. The dems would have no chance at the Illinois Senate.

>> the constitution is silent about how states can allocate their electoral votes, so in the swing states where we're repeatedly failed to win statewide because of the RAT's GOTV urban machines, the state legislators could adapt the Maine/Nebraska system by majority vote.<<

I was all over the idea of the splitting up the electoral votes, it was brought up in PA I think.

PA and MI for sure should have done it. Honestly they are morons for not doing so just and Nebraska was idiotic for not abolishing it there where it is not helpful. The democrats aren't in any similar position in any state to be able to retaliate.

Romney would have got 9 votes from Michigan (he carried every GOP seat and probably saved Benishek and the Paulbot in the 11th from losing).

My source has not finished doing the numbers from PA but I presume he took every GOP seat in PA as well since he did get the 6th and 8th. That's another 10. 19 extra votes. If you had WI do it as well that's 5 more votes, 24.

Add that to stolen Florida and you have 259, just 11 short of victory. Get on it, morons. Heaven forbid 1 of the Governors isn't reelected in 2014.

>>Also, repeal the 23rd, I'm pretty sure all conservatives could get behind that one, even if AuH2ORepublican's proposal for a "state of new Columbia" with the liberal Virginia and Maryland suburbs isn't addressed. In any case, just repealing the 23rd on its own would "disenfranchise" those hard-left socialists who live in D.C. and that's music to my ears. No electoral votes for you!<<

I forgot about the 23rd amendment. If a democrat ever wins 270-268 cause of that stupid shite you will be able to stick your head out your window and hear me screaming from 20 miles away. There were not a lot of GOP legislatures when that was ratified so we couldn't have stopped it probably but every GOP controlled chamber voted it in (and Alabama did so in 2002 for some reason, probably cause some blithering idiot made a stink).

Imagine the democrats giving 3 electoral votes to a tiny GOP city-state. That would happen as soon the rats in my neighborhood start crapping gold ingots instead of rat crap.

[Impy]

Nothing will make the sheeple democrap voters pay attention to the state leg, nothing.

And God forbid they do, they may decided their guy isn’t Marxist enough!

Remember we are not dealing with 19th Century America here, that is the most important point. The people are flipping stupid, they are the problem, process is not the problem. A different process cannot fix the problem.

[central_va]

Stop comparing your state with other states. The 17th amendment was passed during a very progressive era. You are defending the progressive agenda.

[Impy]

I mentioned no state. Democrap voters in every state are the same.

The 17th amendment was passed during a very progressive era.

So what, not everything is bad cause it was passed in the 1910's.

[sickoflibs]

RE :>But are conservatives talking about and organizing reforms like that? No, they're passing meaningless secession petitions, calling on Obama to be impeached, demanding the 17th be repealed so corrupt RAT legislators can appoint Senators for life, etc., none of which has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. They might as well pass a resolution declaring Ronald Reagan is the “honorary” President now so they can feel good about their circle jerk:”

HA-HA, you sound like me, let me guess, they will repeal O-care once more then get nothing out of the debt limit after all their boasting on TV.

[AuH2ORepublican]

One problem with having a state like PA unilaterally adopt the Maine/Nebraska system for allocating EVs is that it is possible that we would need PA’s 20 EVs to get to 270. For example, had Romney received 2.75% more of the vote in the Rust Belt states and 1.75% more in states outside the Rust Belt, he would have carried FL, OH and PA (but not VA, CO, IA, NH, WI, MN or MI) along with the 24 states he carried anyhow, which would have given Romney 273 EVs if PA were winner-takes-all but only 268 EVs if PA used the Maine/Nebraska EV allocation method.

I think that for it to be sound strategy for GOP legislatures and governors to switch to a ME/NE system there must be enough states doing the same thing so as to make it unlikely that the move would bite the GOP in the behind. I count 6 states where the GOP controlled both houses and the governorship both prior to November and currently and which recently have voted Democrat in presidential elections: FL, PA, OH, MI, VA and WI. Had all 6 switched to the ME/NE EV allocation method prior to November, and had the vote been exactly the same as it was in November (a HUGE “if,” since obviously the Obama campaign would have targeted marginal CDs in, say, PA, instead of just making sure to get out the vote in Philly), then Romney would have picked up 16 EVs in FL, 13 in PA, 12 in OH, 9 in MI, 7 in VA (it should have been 8, but Rigell’s VA-01 gave Obama a 50-49 victory) and 5 in WI, which would have given Romney 268 electoral votes, one short of throwing the election to the House (and two short of a majority). And had Romney been able to carry one of those states, he would have reached 270 EVs (since the statewide winner gets 2 bonus EVs under the ME/NE system), so we wouldn't have the anomaly of having the switch cost the Republican the election.

Of course, Romney was very fortunate to carry all those marginal CDs in FL, PA, OH, VA and MI, and had Obama done a smidgen better in the suburbs he would have flipped a handful of EVs, but had that been the case Romney would have had no chance with a winner-takes-all system either.

So I think that the GOP legislatures in FL, PA, OH, MI, VA and WI should consider switching to the ME/NE system, but only if all of them are willing to do it. It wouldn't guarantee a GOP victory in 2016, but it certainly would make it an easier road to 270.

[BillyBoy]

>> Illinois is going to have 2 liberal Senators anyway. <<

Peter Fitzgerald
U.S. Senator from Illinois, 1998-2005
Conservative Republican
Elected to office

Everett Dirksen
U.S. Senator from Illinois, 1951-1969
Conservative Republican
Elected to office

And that's not even counting the RINO Senators from Illinois during recent decades (Mark Kirk, Chuck Percy, etc.) who would have never been Senators if Speaker-for-life Mike Madigan got to make the pick instead of the voters.

Tell me again how repealing the 17th "wouldn't matter" in majority Democrat states?

[BillyBoy]

>> One problem with having a state like PA unilaterally adopt the Maine/Nebraska system for allocating EVs is that it is possible that we would need PA’s 20 EVs to get to 270. So I think that the GOP legislatures in FL, PA, OH, MI, VA and WI should consider switching to the ME/NE system, but only if all of them are willing to do it. It wouldn't guarantee a GOP victory in 2016, but it certainly would make it an easier road to 270. <<

Bush was elected President twice without a single EV from Pennsyvania (although admittedly by the skin of his teeth in 2000)

I think a more likely problem is that if GOP legislatures in swing states dropped the "winner take all" system because they never win statewide in Presidential elections, Dem controlled legislatures would neutralize the effect by doing likewise.

The good news is my first glance at the map shows there's not many areas where they could do so in order to erase new electoral votes the GOP would get out of FL/PA/OH/MI/VA/WI. The Dems could probably pick up quite a few electoral votes out of right-of-center moderate southern states if they switched to the Maine/Nebraska system, but those states are currently controlled by GOP legislatures so they'd stick with winner-take-all. The Dems would have the most to gain from changing Texas, at least on paper, since they virtually zero chance of carrying it statewide in a presidential election right now, but due to sheer population and congressional districts they could gain quite a few EVs by allocating them based Congressional district winner. There are large swaths of Dem-controlled areas in Texas, like the panhandle by the Gulf of Mexico and most of the major cities. However, the state legislature would never play ball and switch from winner take all. Arizona, same problem for the Dems on a smaller scale. The only state where they could use the legislature to change the system and might benefit is West Virginia, but it only has five electoral votes so at most they'd gain 1 or 2 EVs by that method.

[BillyBoy]

>> My advice get out there. Move to Texas or somewhere south <<

The advice of the anti-17th amendment crowd is always "if you don't like your state legislature, MOVE!", so I will use your own logic and return the favor. If you don't like the way the U.S. Senate is chosen, my advice is to move to Canada or someplace north. Then you can rest assured that politicians will choose your Senators for you. Canadians hate their system, so feel free to go up there and champion how great it is to have politicians appoint Senators for life with no accountability from voters.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I find it curious that the arguments of the anti-17thers are full of rank speculation with little substance. I’ve laid out the specifics for what it would mean in reality repeatedly, but have yet to find anyone who can substantively refute them. In this very thread, one of your compatriots couldn’t even make the argument beyond “I’m right, you’re wrong.” Is that a logical and substantive discussion ? Most of what you yourself are putting forth are red herrings.

That there would be this “sudden interest” amongst low or no information voters is also absurd and without a shred of proof beyond rank supposition and hope. You seem to think we’ll magically go back to the late 1700s/early 1800s in types of statesmanship. How is that going to happen ? It won’t.

Again, don’t take this for challenging you as a person. I know you want a better and more accountable government with people fully engaged. I want that, too. But repealing the 17th won’t do that at all. It will merely serve to disenfranchise voters like me, as it is one of the few offices I have any input in (being in Democrat legislative districts, whose members willfully ignore voters like me). I do not want legislative hacks (of either party) choosing my Senators.