It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP's Plan to Sway the Electoral College Vote in 2014

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
GOP May Revive Plan to Influence Electoral College

Some states are entertaining the idea of splitting up their electoral votes so that the gerrymandered districts will have more influence in the general election of 2014.



An article Friday by Jim Geraghty of National Review, a leading opinion shaper for conservatives, floated moving forward with the plan in six states – Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa and Nevada – where Republicans will have total control next year. Doing so would make it “nearly impossible for the Democratic nominee to win,” Geraghty wrote. A map in the article shows much of the midwest, including Democratic strongholds like Michigan and Illinois, colored red. A caption below the map calls the idea “pretty tempting.”

Republican-controlled states that have lately gone blue in presidential elections would pass legislation that changes the way the state divvies up its electoral college votes. Instead of all going to the winner of the popular vote, they’d instead be allocated based on the winner of each congressional district, in most versions of the plan. Or, they could be split up in proportion to the popular vote in the state—so if a candidate gets 48% of the vote, he gets 48% of the electoral votes.


At this point, I would say it's the only way they can "win" the national election. I would bet that they are going to move forward with this plan.



+7 more 
posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hey, something has to be done to offset all the illegals voting democrat.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

GOP is just evil.

Should we put them in FEMA camps or just drown them like kittens?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Elections do have consequences...

I forget who said that.


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I am shocked...SHOCKED...that those wraskilly wrepublicans would actually try to win a national election by legally leveraging the power granted them by their mandated victories in the mid-terms.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I am shocked...SHOCKED...that those wraskilly wrepublicans would actually try to win a national election by legally leveraging the power granted them by their mandated victories in the mid-terms.


If they only had a pen and a phone.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Lets assume voters matter. Whatever the GOP is doing to sway voters , Ted Cruz just undid with the Net neutrality fiasco.

With that said, I look forward to see what a republican control difference is like.

edit on 371130America/ChicagoMon, 10 Nov 2014 16:37:47 -0600up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Nice to see that they are using their "mandate" to further their goals rather than do anything to improve the lives of their constituents.

It's kind of like how they are against raising minimum wage even though the majority of Americans including Republicans are for it.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Or, they could be split up in proportion to the popular vote in the state—so if a candidate gets 48% of the vote, he gets 48% of the electoral votes.


Is it just me, or does that sound perfectly reasonable?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hey, something has to be done to offset all the illegals voting democrat.


Illegals voting is not a problem whatsoever, and the Republicans are all up in arms over it.

The GOP wants to redistrict and mess with electoral votes to truly steal an election........and the Republicans support it?



I thought they were the party of honesty, morality and the virtues of Jesus and all that. Guess not. Looks like they are just as bad as the Democrats that they demonize.

oh, the hypocrisy......it burns.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   


Doing so would make it “nearly impossible for the Democratic nominee to win,”



Unless the Democrats actually put forth a candidate with credibility.

This could really be the end of the Democrat Party as we know it.

I bet a lot of "non voters" wish they could live November 4th all over again.




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
ATS do you notice what side the smaller government crowd is on? They support this? Or have they been lying to you the entire time?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
Whatever the GOP is doing to sway voters , Ted Cruz just undid with the Net neutrality fiasco.


Ted Cruz's idiocy will be accepted and lauded as "genius" by those who don't know what net neutrality is. Many of the people who support him are just as stupid as he is.


originally posted by: sheepslayer247
oh, the hypocrisy......it burns.


The hypocrisy is truly a thing to behold! Rigging the system to guarantee a win is what those who cannot win fairly would do.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Nothing motivates the democratic base to come out to vote like republicans acting like detached Americans. The same people that supported redistricting, voter ID, are going to support this as well. It might piss some people off. But I feel republicans acting like republicans will ensure a record turnout in 2016, then what? Will we be batter off under democrats?

Republican infighting will see to it not much gets done, other than raises, better retirement (both for themselves), and cutting education budgets in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy.

We needed you to win so you can show the nation what frauds you really are, not the the dems are any better.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I am shocked...SHOCKED...that those wraskilly wrepublicans would actually try to win a national election by legally leveraging the power granted them by their mandated victories in the mid-terms.
Yeah and it's not as if the Dems have been trying to do away with the Electoral College for decades LOL How dare those Republicans! Ah they're all evil



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

well if Maine and Nebraska do it why not make it a national system?seems more then a few states were all ready on the way to doing this even before the big red wave of November. and if Maine did it and is a primarily democratic state how can this be a solely evil republican scheme like the op's article seems to claim.

www.rollcall.com...


Two years from now, we will have just elected a new president. We know the election date: Nov. 8, 2016. What we don’t know is just how our votes will count. Under the Constitution, states decide how to allocate Electoral College votes — and there are rumblings of change. One thing is clear: Americans rightly see the current system is failing. In any election decided by fewer than a million votes, it’s a coin flip as to whether the popular-vote winner will become president. Just as troubling, today’s politically polarized voting patterns ensure that campaigns will devote all their resources to voters in a handful of the usual swing states — think Ohio, Virginia and Florida. More than 2 in 3 Americans live in spectator states where their votes can be dismissed as irrelevant. Fortunately, our framers gave our state legislators the tools to fix presidential elections. State laws govern how states allocate electors, with states making many changes going back to the founders’ generation. Today, legislators focus on two basic reform approaches: One to join with other states to guarantee election of the national popular vote winner, and the other to act on their own to replace the winner-take-all rule for allocating electors. We prefer the National Popular Vote plan. It would put every voter on equal footing by ensuring that the winner of the most popular votes in all 50 states always earns a majority of electoral votes and, as a result, the White House. Coming in the form of a binding interstate agreement, the plan is activated only after being adopted by states that collectively represent a majority of the Electoral College. At that point, all participating states will award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.



i think this is scaring the dems as it could put a dent in their historical domination of ny and ca, i mean did any one see how much red was actually in ca this election that would put a good deal of 54 votes truly up for grabs for the first time in a long time no more guaranteed 54 votes for a dem president from ca same could be said for NY that also tends to go dem because of NYC having alot more people then the surrounding rural areas.

it would also let cities like austin have an impact in Texan elections as then at least some blue votes would come from Texas despite it being a red state stronghold . it would also take alot of the default power away from major cities from holding sway over the rest of the state i see this as a good thing.it would also increse voter turn out as i know some people who dont vote if their state is not the color they like it to be(red vs blue) so that apathy would have a greater impact under this system and getting people out to vote would have a much larger impact

edit to add perhaps this will end all the "flyover state " rhetoric that comes out during elections implying that states with low populations opinions dont matter and re equalize power between urban dwellers and rural dwellers who feel that the city folks been ignoring them for to long
edit on 10-11-2014 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I could see how this is would allow every voter to count. Why should a whole state go to one candidate if let’s say all the people living in the rural area vote one way and you have a city of million or two who vote a different way. Just because they are living in a denser area (city) why should it negate all the votes out in the different counties? Where I live we have open primaries which means that democrats can vote in a republican primary then vote democrat in the general election all this does is skew the primary outcomes.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
old article but think it can add context

www.michaelparenti.org...


Even though Bush Jr. lost the nation’s popular vote to Gore by over half a million, he won the electoral college and the presidency itself. Florida was not the only problem. Similar abuses and mistreatment of voters and votes occurred in other parts of the country. A study by computer scientists and social scientists estimated that four to six million votes were left uncounted in the 2000 election.2
imagine had we done it by the popular vote as opposed to current way then there would have been a bush presidency.....

elections.firedoglake.com... few more links

www.factcheck.org... i guess its only happened four times (a president being elected who did not get popular vote)

www.nationalpopularvote.com... site tracking popular vote progress in legislation

and just as one more quandary to ponder would this not be huge for independent candidates as then they may win some of the electoral votes up for grabs(not sure if they have ever won any in a presidential election) and get more say too in national elections?

www.gallup.com... article from gallup from 2011


Gallup's initial measure of support for the Electoral College with this wording was conducted in the first few days after the 2000 presidential election in which the winner remained undeclared pending a recount in Florida. At that time, it was already clear that Democratic candidate Al Gore had won the national popular vote over Republican George W. Bush, but that the winner of the election would be the one who received Florida's 25 Electoral College votes. During this period, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to favor replacing the Electoral College system with a popular vote system. In a Gallup poll conducted Dec. 15-17 -- shortly after the Dec. 12 Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recount, thereby deciding the election in Bush's favor -- 75% of Democrats said they would amend the Constitution so that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins. By contrast, 56% of Republicans favored keeping the Electoral College, while 41% favored replacing it with a popular vote system. Republicans have grown somewhat more amenable to adopting a popular vote system over the past decade. Now, for the first time since 2000, the majority of Republicans favor it. Independents are not quite as supportive as Democrats of the popular vote system, but the majority of them have consistently favored it.
funny its a republican scheme coming from the new dominance they have in the senate and house but in 2011 it was a fine and dandy idea to do funny how politics works like that some times huh? i guess we found a bipartisan issue the republicans and democrats can agree on after all



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
well there seems to be precedent...

Democrats Redistricting

In California, Democrats' Redistricting Strategy Paid Off

Illinois court upholds Democratic redistricting plans

Democrats also took a role in Florida redistricting battle

my congresswoman (D) is in her 5th term mostly because of lousy opponents but redistricting has definitely helped her.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
well there seems to be precedent...

Democrats Redistricting

In California, Democrats' Redistricting Strategy Paid Off

Illinois court upholds Democratic redistricting plans

Democrats also took a role in Florida redistricting battle

my congresswoman (D) is in her 5th term mostly because of lousy opponents but redistricting has definitely helped her.

Republicans are also good at redistricting that's how they were finally able to get Dennis Kucinich out of office.

This is why we need to get rid of the electoral college and let the people of the nation as a whole vote the President into office not just a few states.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join