Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012
Mother Jones, via Hot Air ^ | 14 Sep 2011 | Nick Baumann

Posted on 09/15/2011 7:15:39 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.

Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)

This could cost Obama dearly...

(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012gopprimary; bho2012; election2012; electoralcollege; electoralvotes; motherjones; obama2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Never thought I'd see "GOP" and "genius" in the same sentence....

The Lefties seem to be genuinely afeared of this PA proposal.

I'm not so sure it's such a great idea myself, however. From a tactical point of view, while we may pick up EVs in states that we usually lose, like PA and IL, it seems that these would be balanced somewhat by losing EVs from Dem seats in states we *usually* win, like FL, NC, IN, etc.

Ultimately, however, I think this EV idea is dangerous specifically because it would almost eliminate the concept of divided government.

Think about it - whoever wins Congress would almost certainly also win the Presidency. While that may be good when we have a GOP President win and come in with a GOP Congress (well, unless they act like Bush II and Congress from 2000-2006....), what about if another Obama wins, and gets a Congress just like him?

1 posted on 09/15/2011 7:15:42 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

What will cost 0bama is that he is an America hating communist.


2 posted on 09/15/2011 7:20:21 AM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

It’s an excellent idea, and key to this is the fact that is the state GOP organizations and NOT the national GOP who are pushing it through. Pennsylvania is dominated by Philly and Pittsburgh, and assigning electoral votes to the Commonwealth’s individual congressional districts would break the cities’ stranglehold and finally give largely Conservative rural voters a say in the election.


3 posted on 09/15/2011 7:21:33 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Think about it - whoever wins Congress would almost certainly also win the Presidency.

Not if you factor the massive advantage incumbents have. There might be a new President, but the Congresscritter would remain.

4 posted on 09/15/2011 7:23:45 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (New gets old. Steampunk is always cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Genius just isn’t the word. Stupid is. Rig the system and not too far in the future, it will come back tio bite them. This shows the corrupt side of politics - win by stealth and deception, not by winning the voters over by good policies.


5 posted on 09/15/2011 7:23:45 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Actually, it’s been the Democrats who have been pushing this idea for several years. It’s not a Republican idea at all. It’s been their way of getting around the Electoral College.

So I’m with you. I oppose the idea. It almost makes it like a parliamentary system, in which we vote in one government or another, liberal or conservative, and the president becomes nothing more than a prime minister.


7 posted on 09/15/2011 7:25:02 AM PDT by StonyMan451 (As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Well, it's the obvious pushback against the Democrat "National Popular Vote" concept: that a state awards its' delegates to whoever wins the NATIONAL, not the STATE vote. . .

Not that they don't have it coming. It just tends to screw the Dems, as shown here:


8 posted on 09/15/2011 7:25:18 AM PDT by Salgak (Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border: I dare you to try and cross it. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

They are setting the stage for riots.


9 posted on 09/15/2011 7:28:42 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
This is a scorched earth strategy. You use it when you temporarily take control of territory vital to the enemy, but know that holding it is doubtful. So when the GOP gains control over states like Pennsylvania or New Jersey you break up their electoral votes. Thus denying those GOP districts to the enemy in the future, even if they take Pennsylvania back in 2014. It is just like, and opposite to the Dems plan to allocate electoral votes by the national vote that they have pushed in states that they control.

The Dems want to be able to control as many votes as possible from their fraud heavy inner city districts. The more power divested from the cities the better. The less central control, the harder it is to cheat. And the less cheating the better it is for conservatives.
10 posted on 09/15/2011 7:28:49 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme...

No, it was the 'rat party that opened this pandora electoral college box. Its just that the 'rats start this without any brain cell activity, in a knee-jerk kind of way... and now a few republicans have actually thought about it, and have found a legal constitutional way to proceed that accomplishes what the 'rats wanted to do, but now for republicans. 'Rats should never have pushed the notion of electoral college nullification, and neither should have pushed, way back when, the 17th amendment.

11 posted on 09/15/2011 7:29:26 AM PDT by C210N (0bama, Making the US safe for Global Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Why does it seem that politicians can work really well together and fast when it comes to getting their parties reelected, but they cant can anything done that's productive to the citizen?
12 posted on 09/15/2011 7:29:57 AM PDT by Palter (Even liberals need jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

—Rig the system and not too far in the future...—

I would not apply the word “rig” to this. It actually makes it more fair. It is appalling that one guy can “slightly” win a ton of states and, therefore win all of their votes, while the other can win far more votes, but they are lumped in only a few states, so he ends up losing. I like representative government to be a little more “local” than that.


13 posted on 09/15/2011 7:32:17 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

This idea has been analyzed several times since 2000 and in the long run comes out to favor the rats...bad idea.


14 posted on 09/15/2011 7:38:53 AM PDT by 6ppc (It's torch and pitchfork time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The GOP are genius to them in this case because they are advocating a liberal idea. Proportioning the Electoral votes for a state is a step towards pure populist vote - something they have been pining for since 2000.
15 posted on 09/15/2011 7:39:28 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

The Constitution is very specific that it is up to each State to make rules to govern how their Electoral College electors are to be chosen. It wasn’t until 1836, I believe, that all States finally held elections to determine the electors. In 1832, South Carolina, for example, had their electors chosen by the State Legislature.

Maine and Nebraska already divide their electors this way, so there is certainly current precedent.


16 posted on 09/15/2011 7:39:38 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

If you think you’ve seen Gerrymandering before, just wait until a plan like this is implemented.


17 posted on 09/15/2011 7:40:21 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Palin or Perry, whoever is ahead in the delegate count on primary day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution. If change is needed - change the Constitution all fair and square and above-board.


18 posted on 09/15/2011 7:41:27 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“But given the state of the economy and Obama’s low approval ratings, the election is likely to be close”

Close???? Where has this guy been for the past 3 years?


19 posted on 09/15/2011 7:41:49 AM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

How about combining them? Candidate who won the most EVs would get all EVs from that state.


20 posted on 09/15/2011 7:41:56 AM PDT by paudio (The 0bama Downgrade Part Two (a possible sequel to the current horror movie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

—The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution. If change is needed - change the Constitution all fair and square and above-board.—

I confess that I have not followed this issue all that closely. If your first sentence is true, then I agree with your second.


21 posted on 09/15/2011 7:43:02 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

At least the GOP are targeting legal voters, you know...those here legally and breathing.


22 posted on 09/15/2011 7:44:48 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

So who leaked the “the Plan” to Mother Jones?
We have a mole and the VRWC wants to see his head in a block of lucite on the security chief’s desk by Friday.

Don’t forget to set your decoder rings.

BTW: Wasn’t it originally Democrat controlled states that were pushing something like this?


23 posted on 09/15/2011 7:46:35 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Pennsylvania might switch to a Maine / Nebraska system, yes?


24 posted on 09/15/2011 7:47:34 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Correct. This is not a scheme and it is not a new idea. It has been tried and tested successfully in Maine since the 1972 election and in Nebraska since the 1992 election.

It makes sure that one area of the state doesn't consistently dominate every election, particularly when it is an area which is prone to fraud and fake votes as is the case in Pennsylvania.

It also equalizes votes so that every voter is picking three electors. Seven of Pennsylvania's congressional districts are highly competitive. Another five are somewhat competitive. Add the two at large votes and candidates will be able to compete for 9-14 electoral votes. They will just have to do it throughout the state rather than in the 1 or 2 largest media markets.

The RATs have been pushing their stupid National Popular Vote plan since the 2000 election. This is a logical counter.

25 posted on 09/15/2011 7:50:57 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Exactly.

The politicians:

cannot secure our borders.
cannot balance our budget.
cannot solve Medicaid/SS time bomb

But they can scheme and change the rules to get power for themselves?


26 posted on 09/15/2011 7:51:47 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I cautiously concur but only because the subject is PA. The idea seems not toxic only if it is the case in a few states. The government has moved far enough to democratic election structure and truly needs actually to reinstate some oligopolistic elements (Senators selected by legislatures again, for instance). PA’s proposal would increase the democracy in PA at the expense of mixed government, further destablizing the governance process.

I really don’t like it, overall.


27 posted on 09/15/2011 7:51:51 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

This plan is a good one for us.

Pennsylvania is clearly a state where this system would benefit us.

New York, California, it would benefit us.

Texas, it would not benefit us.


28 posted on 09/15/2011 7:53:42 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I would like to see this system in California.


29 posted on 09/15/2011 7:54:35 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Palter
I don't see besides some obtuse argument about balance of power argument as a valid when it comes to elector apportionment. The Constitution is clear that the states set how they send their electors. On balance this is a big win for the Pubbies if all the states adopted it. Of all the beefy electoral college states we would pick up way more than we would give by losing in states like Texas and Florida. It's actually the perfect solution to the popular vote\mob rules nonsense talk. I saw an article about this if this was adopted in 2008 , McCain would have won the election. The way this could be perfected is not a simply apportionment by population but by CDs won. That way the cities could not overpower the small CDs. I think this is what actual the PA legislature is talking about.
30 posted on 09/15/2011 7:54:51 AM PDT by Bronurstomp (nytflyr: #attackwatch I know where Anne Frank is hiding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon
The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution.

Nope: try again. Two states (Nebraska and Maine) already do it this way. Perfectly within the rules of the constitution.
31 posted on 09/15/2011 7:56:01 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

It is not nullifying the Constitution. Read about the history of how electors have been chosen since 1789 before you make statements like that.


32 posted on 09/15/2011 7:56:11 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
There is a huge difference between this plan and proportioning as was proposed and defeated in Colorado.

Proportioning is nothing more than a softer version of the stupid National Popular Vote plan which would make states irrelevant. This would make state more relevant by making sure just one big urban area of the state didn't decide all elections.

Essentially, it does on the state level what the electoral college system does on the national level.

It is not a new idea. Two states are already doing it.

33 posted on 09/15/2011 7:56:46 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
I remember that argument.

Before the election they held the opposite opinion; the dems were at first warning about messing with the Electoral College and implying that Bush might scheme to give more weight to the popular vote.

After the election, then the popular vote became the dem ideal.

This is reminiscent of the novel 1984 where a propagandist would change positions in the middle of a speech without even flinching

34 posted on 09/15/2011 7:58:00 AM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon
The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution.

Well, no, the Constitution never specifies *how* states are to decide their electors. It may be a bad idea, but it's not unconstitutional.

35 posted on 09/15/2011 7:58:58 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: paudio
How about combining them? Candidate who won the most EVs would get all EVs from that state.

The logic seems a bit circular to me. How exactly can it be determined how many electoral votes a candidate won unless they have all been allocated?

36 posted on 09/15/2011 8:02:26 AM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Nebraska Congressional Districts Maine Congressional Districts
Maybe you ought to look at the Congressional Districts in Maine and Nebraska where the system is actually used before making such a statement. Then compare that to a couple of states where the system is not used.
37 posted on 09/15/2011 8:06:03 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All

Something for everybody’s consideration:

In 2008, Obama beat McCain with 365 to 173 EV.

I every state in the union followed a CD proportion with state winner taking the remaining 2 EVs, the split would have been 301 for Obama and 237 for McCain.


38 posted on 09/15/2011 8:06:35 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I believe if you did that for all elections back to 1960 (maybe further), you would find that the idea doesn’t change a single election’s results.


39 posted on 09/15/2011 8:08:57 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Wouldn’t it be better simply to remove Philadelphia and Pittsburgh from the state?


40 posted on 09/15/2011 8:12:42 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Heavy the head that wears the tiara.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

Believe me, my in-laws would like to.


41 posted on 09/15/2011 8:14:09 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
You got it. Seems some folks here are confused. Dems want a national popular vote because they win the urban vote. If we could get states to split their electorals based on the state vote (NOT! national popular vote), the the whole dem strategy would unwind.

This is the kind of thing that could alter the democrat party. If we could split off electorals from NY and California too, then they would have to scale back their pro urban welfare state platform.

42 posted on 09/15/2011 8:22:35 AM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Sorry, I just posted a similar article.

I hope PA goes ahead with this plan. My first reaction was to oppose it, but the beauty of this plan is it limits the vote fraud. The Rats can't get an entire states electoral votes with the fraudulent votes of the urban centers. It's better than going to the popular vote because vote fraud can then play a role again.

I hope the Pubs in PA have the same kind of courage that the Pubs in WI did.

43 posted on 09/15/2011 8:25:11 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

California is trying to do this...which would in fact be a huge benefit to the GOP.

But I had some other thoughts about better electoral reform, aimed directly at democrat vote rigging:

1. Simultaneous precinct reporting—have a set time where all precincts report together after all the votes are counted—this would eliminate the practice of dem precincts monitoring returns and ‘finding’ enough votes to sway an election.

2. Blind precinct reporting—until the vote counting is complete and filed with the Secretary of State, precincts cannot identify themselves.

3. Precinct communication blackout—anywhere votes are counted, there should be a complete communication blackout—no cell phones, no texting, no e-mail, no external communications whatsoever, except directly with Secretary of State or registrar of voters as necessary to solve any issues or report count results. EVERY communication in and out of the precinct should be logged and recorded for audit purposes.

Had some other ideas, but too early in the morning to get them down in writing.

Thoughts?


44 posted on 09/15/2011 8:32:31 AM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
but the beauty of this plan is it limits the vote fraud.

THAT is a good point!

45 posted on 09/15/2011 8:33:23 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
I believe if you did that for all elections back to 1960 (maybe further), you would find that the idea doesn’t change a single election’s results.

Probably true. I didn't go all the way back to 1960, but for 2000 and 2004, using some quickie back-of-the-envelope calculations we see:

2000 - Bush 302 vs. Gore 236, versus the 271-266 actual split

2004 - Bush 331 vs. Kerry 207, versus the 286-251 actual split.

Seems this plan might be a good way to break the lock that urban areas have on electing our President.

46 posted on 09/15/2011 8:36:18 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Well, now I have a pet project to do for the next few days. I’m pretty sure I can dig up election records for Congressional districts somewhere.


47 posted on 09/15/2011 8:48:18 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

Just google “presidential election results congressional district XXXX” where XXXX is the year. SHould be able to pull something up from CQ, etc.


48 posted on 09/15/2011 8:55:02 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

The only race in the modern era that would have changed had the Maine/Nebraska Formula been implemented nationwide was 1960. Nixon would have beaten Kennedy.


49 posted on 09/15/2011 8:56:39 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
My first reaction was to oppose this, but limiting vote fraud is good. Also, they are awarding 2 EV to the winner of the total state vote.

I live in the lib state of IL. Chicago dominates the state at all levels, but there are huge sections of the state that are not liberal. These areas of the State are meaningless in a presidential election. If this system existed here it would change that.

50 posted on 09/15/2011 9:02:24 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson