The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012

Mother Jones, via Hot Air ^ | 14 Sep 2011 | Nick Baumann

[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...

[arthurus]

And it would further the diminution of the States as politically distinct entities and tend to make them more like Provinces.

[arthurus]

this would eliminate the practice of dem precincts monitoring returns and ‘finding’ enough votes to sway an election.

I think it would more likely maximize that activity in all districts where it is possible.

[Bronurstomp]

Yes but our current system allows for rampant voter fraud in urban areas and allows more of a mob rule than an apportion type strategy. I don't think “Well I don't know but I am sure the Democrats will find a way to use this against us” is a valid counterpoint and the legislators in my state agree. The larger states with urban areas should adopt this strategy, it's actually more in line with what the founders had envisioned than a winner take all deal. Rural counties votes count as much as the urban area. Candidates would have to appeal to ALL Americans not just to urban interests like mass transit, large public works projects, etc. It is a superior idea whose time has come.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Maybe you ought to look at the Congressional Districts in Maine and Nebraska where the system is actually used before making such a statement.

Choosing states with just two representatives each (and not a huge political divide between urban and rural areas) isn't really a good counterargument.

Yes, let's indeed focus on the states that already have a history of Gerrymandering for the purposes of congressional representation. The political maneuvering that led to the Gerrymandering in the first place would kick into overdrive when the presidency is at stake.

If the party in power in a state decides that bizarrely-drawn districts will make the difference in a presidential election, what do you think will happen?

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Choosing states with just two representatives each

Oops, I just noticed that Nebraska has 3 districts -- but my point still stands: I'm willing to bet that Nebraska is politically homogeneous enough outside of Omaha that there's no point in trying to Gerrymander the districts.

[Vigilanteman]

I will concede that is is likely that the Maine and Nebraska plan as applied to larger states, will probably not produce the neat congressional boundries which I've already demonstrated exist there. But it is a false argument for two reasons:

1. States dominated by the Democrat party won't do it anyway because fairness is an alien concept unless it helps them. This won't.

2. Rampant Gerrymandering already exists, as demonstrated by four random examples:

   

   IOW, it really can't get much worse. If Gerrymandering is a concern, it can be addressed by legislation such as Iowa enacted to draw boundries by an independent commission separated from the political process and mandated to respect county and municipal boundries. This was the result:

   
   Current configuration on the left, redistrticted configuration (starting next election cycle) on the right.

[paudio]

The election night we only get information about who won the most EVs. Upon knowing which candidate is the ‘winner’, the rest of the EVs are allocated to him/her. Granted, this only works with odd number of EVs.

[tnlibertarian]

At this point, I think the only ‘genius’ plan needed by the GOP is, um, run somebody.