The GOP Plan to Take the Electoral-Vote-Rigging Scheme National By Molly Ball
inShare Jan 25 2013, 11:35 AM ET 255
A Republican operative reveals his initiative to award presidential electors by congressional district in states across the country.
Reuters
Republican legislators in several states have begun pushing to apportion electoral-college votes by congressional district, a move that has Democrats up in arms. Had a similar scheme been in effect in 2012, nationally or in a handful of key states, Mitt Romney could have won the presidency despite losing the popular vote. (David Graham explains the idea, and why it's so controversial, here.)
Up to now, these efforts appear to have sprouted independently as the work of individual lawmakers in Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Virginia plan has passed the state House of Delegates and could become law as soon as next week.
But now a Republican operative has a plan to take the idea national.
Jordan Gehrke, a D.C.-based strategist who's worked on presidential and Senate campaigns, is teaming up with Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio Republican secretary of state, to raise money for an effort to propose similar electoral reforms in states across the country, he told me this week.
Gehrke and Blackwell have been talking to major donors and plan to send a fundraising email to grassroots conservatives early next week. The money would go toward promoting similar plans to apportion electoral votes by congressional district in states across the country, potentially even hiring lobbyists in state capitals.
Gehrke isn't saying which states the project might initially target. He says he'd like to see the plan implemented in every state, not just the ones where clever redistricting has given Republicans an edge, and he justifies it in policy, not political terms.
A presidential voting system where the electoral college was apportioned by congressional district might not be perfectly fair, he says, but it would be better than what we have now. It would bring democracy closer to the people, force presidential candidates to address the concerns of a more varied swath of the American populace, and give more clout to rural areas that are too often ignored. And while it might help Republicans in states like Virginia, it could give Democrats a boost in states like Texas. Ideally, this new system, implemented nationally, would strengthen both parties, he claims.
I interviewed Gehrke about the plan and the many objections to it; an edited transcript follows.
Why do this?
What we have currently is a system where there are 10 battleground states and 40 states that don't matter. So all the federal government has to do [to secure the incumbent party's reelection] is buy off people in the 10 states and ignore the issues of the people in the 40. You're asking for a larger, more intrusive federal government -- that's what [the current electoral vote system of] winner-take-all does.
You end up with a situation where on Day 32 of the [2010 Deepwater Horizon] oil spill, Obama has not gone to Louisiana. But on Day 36, when oil starts lapping the shore in Florida, all of a sudden he's down there walking around with [former Florida governor] Charlie Crist. Or you get, in 2000, Bush supposedly running as a free trader -- but he comes out for steel tariffs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, because he's trying to win those states. And then in 2008, when West Virginia is no longer in play, Obama feels free to wage a war on coal.
We should have a system where the people running for president have to worry about what's happening in individual congressional districts. It brings government a lot closer to the people.
If that's your goal, why not just get rid of the electoral college and elect presidents by pure popular vote?
Abolishing the electoral college is not something I support; it's what the Founders intended. This is not abolishing or getting around the electoral college at all. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution gives exclusive plenary power to state legislatures to award electors in the manner in which they see fit. Massachusetts has changed the way they award their electors multiple times throughout history. There's a letter from Jefferson to the Virginia delegation asking, after he lost to Adams, to change the way they [awarded electors] before the next election.
Already, Maine and Nebraska award their electors in this way, and nobody seems to be outraged about it. The alternative is something like National Popular Vote [an interstate compact currently in place in eight states and D.C. that would award electors to the winner of the overall vote nationally]. It's just not practical -- folks have been trying to do it for years and they need a lot more states to get it done. It's not going to happen anytime soon. This [electoral votes by congressional district plan] is a practical solution to a real problem. State legislators anywhere can simply get together and say, hey, how do I get more attention for my state? How do I make sure every vote counts?
I'm not really here to argue for or against this or that electoral system. All I think we have to prove is that this is better than the current system. The current system's a mess.
Isn't this really a way for Republicans to take advantage of their advantageous 2010 redistricting efforts, which used crazy gerrymandering to give them control of congressional delegations and state legislatures in states where they can't win a majority of the voters, like Virginia?
The question is fairness. We already have a system where you can win the popular vote and lose the election. I'm not saying this is a perfect system; I'm saying that, given that we have a fundamentally imperfect system, this is an improvement. Ultimately, it's very hard to argue that it's better to have a system where presidential candidates can ignore the majority of voters and not address their concerns. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but is this equal or better than what we already have? Do you believe it's acceptable to have, say, 100 million out of 130 million Americans whose votes effectively dont matter? And this other small group whose votes matter more than anybody else's, and that distorts policy outcomes with candidates trying to buy them off?
The common thing you're seeing in those states [where this is being proposed] is that major cities dominate the statewide vote, but meanwhile, people are voting for Republicans in state legislatures, assemblies, and constitutional offices. The divide between rural and urban America has never been bigger in some ways than it is right now. I really think that's what this is about. You've got people in Michigan saying, "Why is it that this is Mitt Romney's home state, yet he only came here [to campaign] one time?" It's the winner-take-all system. "Why should Ohio's votes matter any more than our votes do?" What you're seeing is that in a lot of these states, these guys want more attention paid to them. If you're a Democrat and you just won the presidential election but your state got ignored, you're probably OK with it. If you're a Republican, you're probably a little more bothered by it.
But Virginia, the state that's now looking at passing this, hardly got ignored in the presidential election. It was one of the top swing states.
Well, people in Northern Virginia didn't have any problem being paid attention to, but people in other parts of Virginia certainly did. I think that's what you're seeing [behind this legislation] -- legislators who represent individual districts that have gotten ignored. Look at Ohio, the preeminent battleground state in every single cycle. People in Cleveland get plenty of attention paid to them, but meanwhile, Obama's waging a war on coal in Southeast Ohio. I promise you, there are a lot of guys in Southeast Ohio who wish Obama had to come there and answer their questions and deal with them and ask for their votes. The fact is, he didn't, and it governed his policy in a way that hurt them.
Isn't that just because there aren't as many voters in Southeast Ohio? The reason rural America is losing power just because that's not where the population is anymore, and politicians are going to go where the votes are -- that's democracy.
The difference, though, is that rural and urban America increasingly have different goals, different aspirations, and different goals they use to evaluate candidates. We're seeing a situation where people in Michigan say, wait a minute, why should Detroit always get to pick our candidates? I go to Detroit once a year.
Here's the thing, this is how we already do it [in presidential primaries]. This is not a radical idea. This is why Obama beat Hillary. This is why Santorum was able to stay in [as long as he did against Romney]. He lost Michigan, but he split with Romney in terms of delegates [apportioned by congressional district]. We already do this. We already think this is a perfectly fine way for parties to award their delegates. It's not some newfangled, crazy idea.
I've heard an objection to this idea from some Republicans, who worry that it would have given Obama, for example, an incentive to campaign and turn out voters in their districts, which could hurt reelection chances for Republican members of Congress. Have you heard that objection from your colleagues in the GOP?
The point of this is not to help or hurt Republicans. Competitive elections are a good thing.
I also think this solves the voter-fraud problem. There's a perception that voter fraud happens on both sides -- Democrats believe Republicans do it, Republicans believe Democrats do it, I don't know who does it more or better. The point is, under this system you don't have much of an incentive to steal votes.
Why not? Isn't the incentive to steal votes the same anywhere?
It's a lot harder to steal votes in Sheridan, Michigan, than Detroit, Michigan. Dead people don't vote in Sheridan, Michigan. They do in Detroit.
A lot of Democrats will hear this as racial code -- that you want to disenfranchise urban voters, disproportionately minorities, in the inner cities, while giving more weight to the predominantly white populations of rural areas.
I want to disenfranchise dead people, yes. I believe their franchise ends when they die.
It has nothing to do with race. But I don't believe anybody in politics would tell you with straight face that there isn't some sort of problem with the way the Chicago machine works, going back to Dan Rostenkowski -- a white guy. It's not a race issue, it's about a machine.
You are a Republican operative, though. And it's Republican legislators who are pushing this in all the states where it's come up so far. You can claim this is about policy, but doesn't it really make it easier for Republicans to win presidential elections?
That could be a byproduct, depending on who drew the lines last and who's running -- a lot of different things. What it's really about is making sure that more people in more congressional districts get attention.
I think Democrats in Texas should be all over this. Democrats would probably win 15 electoral votes in Texas. I'm not saying this will always be comfortable for Republicans. I've had lots of Republicans argue with me about this, too. Why shouldn't Democrats in Arizona get their voices heard? Why shouldn't they matter too?
what the elephant in the room is that the singularity of popular vote is upon us....as the electoral years go by they become a has been long before they become anything.....
the danger ahead is the irrelevance of those(blue bloods both dem/rep) and making a police state in exchange just to call it controlled chaos/status quo states....
fear to safety/equality just for a facade of safety/equality
access is the code...so the cast system is set up via collusion
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Maine and Nebraska already do this. When Republicans in Nebraska proposed legislation to change Nebraska to a 'winner take all' state, the democrats blocked it. This isn't new.
Maine and Nebraska already do this. When Republicans in Nebraska proposed legislation to change Nebraska to a 'winner take all' state, the democrats blocked it. This isn't new.
The only change to the electoral college should be dissolution.
The only change to the electoral college should be dissolution.
One person = one vote.
Stop the games.
Are you suggesting that federal elections should be determined by pure democracy and eliminate the republic and states rights? The electoral college is the last line of defense protecting states rights. That would mean that states are nothing more than provinces of Washington DC and you can eliminate all state capitals. I'm not saying America isn't already there, but the dissolution of the electoral college and electorates would be a confirmation and normalization of centralizing all governments to the central power of Washington DC.
Are you suggesting that federal elections should be determined by pure democracy and eliminate the republic and states rights? The electoral college is the last line of defense protecting states rights. That would mean that states are nothing more than provinces of Washington DC and you can eliminate all state capitals. I'm not saying America isn't already there, but the dissolution of the electoral college and electorates would be a confirmation and normalization of centralizing all governments to the central power of Washington DC.
Yes. I don't desire a middle man to vote for the President on behalf of the entire state of New York.
No power would be taken from the states except the power to alter the popular vote based on electoral assignment and legal maneuvering.
You are only talking about one person. A single election for the President. He should reflect the wishes of the majority of all voters, not a convoluted legally manipulated system of electors.
All other elected offices are only statewide and are won by popular vote. The electoral college is a scam to manipulate the outcome possibly contrary to the actual wishes of the majority.
The same should apply for political party primaries with the never ending delegate and super delegate crap designed to usurp the wishes of the actual voters.
Again, in the primaries, the delegate count winner may not be the majority of voters nationwide, thereby making the chosen candidate a manipulation of the actual votes.
I don't need a third party to protect me from the popular vote.
The difference would be that the candidates would then have to stump the entire nation instead of the few swing states that get to decide everything.
The electoral college allows a candidate to win before the west coast ballots are even counted.
It's crap. Now they want to redraw electoral boundaries to favor different parties.
Just a bunch of crap.
Living in Ohio or Florida shouldn't increase the value of your vote but right now it does.
By Two-to-One Margin Americans Want to Eliminate the Electoral College By: Jon Walker Friday January 18, 2013 1:12 pm
With the next Presidential election almost four years away, the Electoral College gets little attention but it is always worth pointing out what a horrible institution it is. According to Gallup, by a greater two-to-one margin Americans want to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote
The Electoral College doesn’t just distort our political debate by having candidates focused only on voters in “swing states.” It has repeatedly resulted in the candidate who got the most votes actually losing the election.
Most insidiously, the Electoral College makes it theoretically possible for parties to change how a state assigns their electoral votes to essentially steal. legally, an election. The head of the RNC has even openly talked about doing this to make it basically impossible for a Democrat to win the White House.
Fortunately, effectively stripping the Electoral College of any power is relatively easy. The National Popular Vote campaign is pushing an interstate compact that would make sure our Presidents are elected by all the people by having states agree to give all the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. It will go into effect when enough states to make 270 electoral votes sign on and so far it is halfway to its goal.
The National Popular Vote campaign currently has 132 of the 270 needed delegate counts to make the popular vote guaranteed. Once the campaign reaches 270 delegates, each state will automatically give all delegates to the winner of the popular vote. The Constitution says the electoral college must be used, but it allows each state to decide the manner of distribution of the delegates. Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 53.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to activate it (VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, DC, MA, CA, HI).
The bill has passed 31 legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions (AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OR, RI, VT, WA). In the recent 47–13 vote in the Republican-controlled New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 21–11, and Democrats supported it 26–2. The bill has been endorsed by 2,124 tate legislators.
The shortcomings of the current system stem from state winner-take-all statutes (that award all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state).
The winner-take-all rule has permitted candidates to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in 4 of our 56 elections — 1 in 14 times. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry despite Bush's nationwide lead of 3,000,000.
Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2004 and 2008, candidates concentrated two-thirds of their visits and ad money in the post-convention campaign in just six closely divided "battleground" states — with 98% going to just 15 states. Two thirds of the states were ignored.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was used by only 3 states in our nation's first election in 1789. Maine and Nebraska's awarding of electoral votes by district is a reminder that states control the process.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 53.
The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.
The bill has been endorsed by New York Times, Sacramento Bee, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Fayetteville Observer, Tennessean, and Miami Herald.
The bill has been endorsed by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and FairVote.
And while we're at it, let's abolish an equally undemocratic institution: the U.S. Senate.
The House of Representatives awards representatives based on population. The U.S. Senate, insanely, awards two representatives to each state regardless of population, meaning that each citizen of Wyoming and Vermont has almost 60 times the proportional representation as a citizen of California.
It means that the 684,000 citizens of North Dakota are awarded the same amount of political power as the 25,675,000 citizens of Texas.
It means that each resident of Montana has twenty times more voting power than me, a New Yorker.
It is outrageous and, like the Electoral College, it effectively serves to take power away from the majority in favor of the odd geographic minority. It is plainly undemocratic. And, like the Electoral College, it is only tolerated because it has been a custom for so long that most people have never even considered its implications. In fact, it is a virulently unfair man made practice, the result of a centuries-old power grab, which has persisted for far too long. This assignment of 2 Senators for each state favors the less populated states.
Why should the representatives of a minority of voters get to make the final decisions in the Senate?
Next election day, ask yourself: why is it that my vote probably doesn't mean shitt? And then ask yourself: wouldn't it be nice if my vote did mean something? And finally: wouldn't it be even nicer if everyone's vote meant exactly as much as everyone else's vote?
Maybe we could achieve over 50% turnout if people felt that their vote was equal to everyone else's.
Logged
.
