This is a Big, Big Deal-Josh Marshall Talking Points Memo

[octoberlib]

A week ago I noted a new Republican push to gerrymander the electoral college to make it almost impossible for Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 and 2020, even if they match or exceed Barack Obama’s vote margin in 2012. Is something like that really possible? Yes, very possible.
To review, here’s how it works. The US electoral college system is based on winner take all delegate allocation in all but two states. If you get just one more vote than the other candidate you get all the electoral votes. One way to change the system is go to proportional allocation. That would still give some advantage to the overall winner. But not much. The key to the Republican plan is to do this but only in Democratic leaning swing states — not in any of the states where Republicans win. That means you take away all the advantage Dems win by winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and so forth.

But the Republican plan goes a step further. Rather than going by the overall vote in a state, they’d allocate by congressional district. And this is where it gets real good, or bad, depending on your point of view. Democrats are now increasingly concentrated in urban areas and Republicans did an extremely successful round of gerrymandering in 2010, enough to enable them to hold on to a substantial House majority even though they got fewer votes in House races than Democrats.
In other words, the new plan is to make the electoral college as wired for Republicans as the House currently is. But only in Dem leaning states. In Republican states just keep it winner take all. So Dems get no electoral votes at all.

This all sounds pretty crazy. But it gets even crazier when you see the actual numbers. They’re already pushing a bill to do this in the Virginia legislature. Remember, Barack Obama won Virginia and got 13 electoral votes. But as Benjy Sarlin reported today in a series of posts, if the plan now being worked on would have been in place last November, Mitt Romney would have lost the state but still got 9 electoral votes to Obama’s 4. Think of that, two-thirds of the electoral votes for losing the state. If the Virginia plan had been in place across the country, as Republicans are now planning to do, Mitt Romney would have been elected president even though he lost by more than 5 million votes.
Remember, plans to do this are already underway in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states in the Midwest.

This is happening.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/this_is_a_big_big_deal.php

[limpyhobbler]

1. He just noticed this a week ago?

[octoberlib]

3. He NOTED it a week ago. On the website' noted' links to another article. nt

[limpyhobbler]

5. LOL oops

my dumb. I really should try to read more carefully.


Yes it's pretty important.

[octoberlib]

7. I do the same thing all the time.

[upaloopa]

2. What tics me off is we've known this ever since

Pennsylvania talked about it last election.
What are we going to do about it?

[octoberlib]

4. A bunch of journalists I follow on Twitter were talking about this today

and they can't believe federal courts wouldn't strike these attempts down. I'm not so sure about though. The Supreme Court with all those partisan hacks on it? I have no faith in them at all.

[mattclearing]

42. I think Mother Jones had an article today pointing out that...

...it's selective, and that of course they'll still keep winner-take-all in solid red states, so that was the basis of the issue. It's completely unfair and transparently undemocratic.

I don't really see how the legal aspect of that works, though...this is something that is definitely a state issue, and it would require some serious mental backflips to justify federal intervention.

Kinda makes you wish they'd just apportion electoral votes by vote total at the federal level nationwide so we wouldn't have this gamesmanship. That would go a long way towards preventing future popular vote-winners from losing the electoral college.

[annabanana]

6. He's been watching Rachel? That said.. the more outlets

that cover this story the better.

What I've seen these State repubs do to women makes me think they wouldn't BLINK at gaming the system.

[Larkspur]

8. The Republicans know that they can't win the arguments on issues anymore

This maneuver by the Rethugs is the inevitable result of the DNC dropping the ball on Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy.
When the President is a Dem, the DNC serves him/her, not the party as a whole. That myopia is why Dems are caught flat footed on this dirty trick.

If a Rethug wins the WH by this method but loses the popular vote, he will have a hard time governing. And it will lead to the collapse of the modern Republican Party. The Party won't disappear, but their popularity will be down with the Tea Party's.

Maybe, Reid's compromise with McConnell will be good in the long run, should the Senate remain in Dem hands and the House and WH ends up in Rethug hands.

[xtraxritical]

41. IMO the "electoral college" is an anachronism and should be abolished in favor of the popular vote.

[Lordquinton]

46. If they ever get the majority back

don't think they won't change the rules on us, or make a big stink across the airwaves about the obstructionist libs.

[Enrique]

9. and this is how they rationalize it

they say "those people" are voting for the wrong reasons, so "their" vote was distorting the process. How many comments did we hear from the republicans suggesting that minorities' votes don't really count, that it was unfair that they made the difference for Obama. They said things like, "if you only look at white males, Romney actually won..."

[Dawson Leery]

11. The confederacy lives.

The issue regarding the equal rights of all was never settled.

[lunasun]

52. pretty much where they are at

[Honeycombe8]

10. The voters of the states are to blame.

They show up for the presidential election, but stay home for other elections, apparently, allowing Republicans to govern the state - governorship, state legislature, local officials.

If the Democrats in those states can't sue or do something legal to stop it, I guess the next plan of action is to make sure Democrats vote for ALL elections and make sure the voters understand the importance. Beyond that, ....the only reason this can be done is because voters voted for Republican state representatives and governor.

The Republicans can't govern worth crap, but they know how to win elections. They are ruthless and unethical. But to win is the name of the game.

It's very distressing.

[Neurotica]

12. As a Virginia resident, I agree.

Virginia has elections every year and turnout is abysmal except in presidential election years.

I was out with some friends the other night and we were lamenting this very fact (and this was before VA decided to try this electoral college stunt). But we decided to do more than complain--we're taking action. Not sure exactly what, but we're a bunch of moms who have been successful "community organizers" (and proud of it) and we're pretty pissed off at this point. More to come.

[Honeycombe8]

13. Good for you! I just got a local Democratic org. flyer here in TX. I might actually get involved....

I don't have much spare time, so I usu. just contribute a little $. But I might be able to devote time.

[Neurotica]

27. It's hard to find the time but it's so worth it if you have a chance.

We've been able to make changes locally and that's such an amazing feeling. Sometimes we have shined light on what the right wing is trying to do with respect to schools and stopped them from implementing certain policies. Other times we have worked to elect good people. Now I think we're going to try to expand these efforts. We're still trying to figure out our charter.

[Honeycombe8]

37. It is very exciting to think a change can be made. Esp since I live in TX and there's a chance

TX could turn blue....one day.

[Walk away]

14. I live in NJ but if you form a Pac I would be happy to donate.

Let us know what you want to do as I am sure you will find help here.

[Neurotica]

25. We might. I'll let you know.

[Walk away]

33. Good! nt

[octoberlib]

20. +1

[mountain grammy]

55. Good for you and good luck. Grass roots efforts can change everything.

[HiPointDem]

59. +1.

[MH1]

15. I sadly agree with every word you wrote.

what they are doing may not even be illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore they may get away with it.

The worst part, for me, is knowing that I once thought of something like this as a logical, reasonable idea to split electoral college votes in a state - I don't particularly like the winner-take-all current method. But then I realized the impact of gerrymandering and how it would make things worse. But if I once myself thought this was a good idea ... yikes.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Well, it would be a different matter if ALL the states did it. But when ONLY swing states do it...

it would be devastating.

[n2doc]

22. No, because of gerrymandering

The GOP won more house seats than the Dems last election, even though house Dems running for election totaled more than a million votes more than the repubs they were running against, nationally. So it still would not reflect the will of the people.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

44. Perhaps if Dims would govern like Dems

Then the voting public wouldn't give up. It takes two to tango, my friend.

[libdem4life]

16. The key term here is "Community Organizing" Saul Alinsky and Mother Jones knew how that worked.

Reverend Wright knew about it. Unionizing was another term for it. Obama was tarred and feathered with the "activist/socialist/terrorist" meme. Time to reclaim our heritage.

[benld74]

17. WTF?!?! Ah HELL NO

just how in the hell is it even happening without judicial system noticing and doing something about it?
I understand what they are doing, but I dont get HOW they are getting away with it?

[libodem]

18. Real life evil villians

Very scary people hiding behind religion.

[Politicub]

21. This sounds like something a third world dictator would do

Talk about spitting in the face of your citizens. It's like Georgia. The rural counties despise the city of Atlanta and take it out by underfunding development in the metro area.

If the GOP does this in the states, imagine if they get the executive and the congress.

It doesn't matter what the people want. The GOP has a plan.

It seems the GOP is so out of touch that it wants to destroy the very idea of America.

[Beartracks]

26. Yes, it does sound 3rd world dictatorial. Giving the unethical a "legal" veneer...

... and putting a shiny coat of "fuck you" on it.

==================

[JHB]

28. It's a plan to vandalize the Republic itself

How many Republican presidents need to be elected (by the gerrymander-skewed electoral college) while only getting a minority of the popular vote before it destroys the legitimacy (or pretense thereof, if you prefer) of the vote and the government?

[november3rd]

67. National Popular Vote

There's a movement to do away with the electoral college. That could fix the problem

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[Faryn Balyncd]

23. huge

[KoKo]

24. Hell Yeah! This has been out there...Glad Josh Woke Up to It! Good News..K&$

[PerpetuallyDazed]

29. This confuses me. I have no understanding of how gerrymandering works. Know a good primer? n/t

[octoberlib]

38. Here are some sources

http://politicsandpolicy.org/article/gerrymandering-proving-all-politics-local

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/gerrymandering-how-drawing-jagged-lines-can-impact-an-election-christina-greer

[PerpetuallyDazed]

53. Thanks!

[Betty]

30. they've already done this with the House

My understanding is that with Congress, Democrats nation wide had one million more votes than repigs, but because of gerrymandering, we see a house that has a repig majority. Of course they want to do the same thing with the presidency. Bush v. Gore was just the beginning, I could see endless elections where the will of the people will be completely ignored, and our status as a permanent banana republic will be complete.

[BlueStreak]

31. There is a little silver lining here (admittedly a stretch)

There are two sides to the Gerrymandering coin.

First let's start with an understanding of how the game in played. The utopian goal of the Gerrymanderer would be to create one district that is virtually 100% Democratic, and then have all the other districts favor Republicans 55 to 45% (or whatever ratio will work.)

In reality you can never create a 99% Democratic district. Alan Grayson won in one of those heavily Gerrymandered districts, and his margin was about 62-38. The practical consequence of an aggressive Gerrymandering effort is that the Republicans end up shaving off some of the safety factor in "safe GOP districts". This would not be true if the goal of the Gerrymandering was to simply make Democratic and Republicans seats safer without changing the overall allocation of seats. But that is not the goal. The goal is to carve out more Republican-leaning districts, and therefore these are going to have a much smaller safety factor than would naturally happen.

So, although we must take the election rigging very seriously, and fight it every possible way, we also have an opportunity to make the GOP pay a dear price for their election tampering. Many of these new "Republican" districts might have a natural bias of 55-45 for the GOP. That is a margin we can overcome if we have real leadership and don't concede everything to Republicans. And this is particularly true because the demographics continue to change in our favor even though the districts stay put for a decade or so.

[dreamnightwind]

32. This would be a good electoral reform

IF the districts were fairly drawn by standards that apply to all states, and IF all states would switch to at once. A district selecting its choice for president, and thus its delegate to the electoral college, is pretty much how it ought to work, if you're going to have the electoral college at all (which is another discussion, but I think we should completely get rid of it and go by popular vote).

What the Republicans are up to also gets rid of winner-take-all, which is a terrible system. If a candidate wins a state by, say, 1% (or whatever), it makes no sense for that candidate to get all of he state's electoral college votes. It's just the result of states changing their system one-by-one to try and have more influence in the final result. Even worse, it creates a huge opportunity for fraud. By suppressing a small percentage of votes, you can get victory in a state and get ALL of that state's electoral college votes. Without winner-take-all, you'd just influence the outcome of a single electoral college vote, so the ability to change the outcome would be greatly diminished.

The problems, of course, are that Republicans are attempting to do this just in Dem-leaning swing states (so red states stay winner-takes-all and get to have disproportionate influence on the election) and the fact that after the 2010 census the Republicans drew up favorable districts in states they controlled.

If they get away with doing this selectively, we're in big trouble.

[AzDar]

34. K & R

[BootinUp]

35. Time to take to the streets!

fuck this shit.

[Scurrilous]

36. K & R

[Hawaii Hiker]

39. This is so important that i think President Obama needs to talk about it at

the State of the Union address...

This is nothing but a plan to RIG the election...If this occurs, we pretty much no longer have a democracy...

[olegramps]

40. It is past time to do away with the Electoral College system.

It is prone to abuses that circumnavigate the will of the majority. Just as the filibuster rule in the Senate is far more prone to abuse rather protecting the minority. When an unjust law is passed at least it can be challenged in the court system, however, under the present system laws are prevented from ever even getting a vote resulting in the obstructionism that has destroyed they system. It is the only system where the minority rules and the Republicans are intent on extending this corruption of democracy to national elections.

What will happen when the minority win a national election? Could it lead to civil war or at least massive riots when the majority are disenfranchised? Will the overwhelming majority allow themselves to be ruled by a despotic minority? The concentration of the population in the cities could make it impossible for order to be maintained if the populace is excited to the point of massive riots. No one can predict what may happen if that is the case, however, similar situations that have lead to riots and revolts are a historical fact.

[lunatica]

43. Someone needs to take these people to court

All the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

[47of74]

56. Unfortunately I think the Doge of the Supreme Court (Scalia) and his friends...

....would come up with some bullshit excuse to keep this legal.

[lunatica]

61. Clarence Thomas with his Teabag Party wife is more worrisome

But maybe we have to take our chances. We can't allow this to happen without a fight.

[Coyotl]

64. Gerrymandering can rig the Electoral College, thus a legal basis to overturn gerrymandered states!

All that is needed is a group that can show they are discriminated against by gerrymandering.

[octoberlib]

45. This could be a solution

Democrats don't have the votes to fight back with anything similar, but they do have another weapon in their back pocket: the National Popular Vote interstate compact, an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. If states with more than half of all electoral votes sign up for this, it goes into effect.

So far, only nine states with a total of 132 electoral votes have signed up. But if Republicans continue their patently shameful effort to game the Electoral College system, it might spur more states to sign up. That's what a sense of outrage can do. Republicans might want to think about that as they move forward. If they keep going, the end result might be a system even less favorable to them than the current electoral college.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/republicans-might-be-outsmarting-themselves-electoral-college

[judesedit]

47. Get rid of the electoral college. One person one vote. Count as in India. More people no problems

If this country's not corrupt, what's the problem with that?

[secondvariety]

48. I think

this would actually doom the GOP. Unfortunately for them, it's a fairly uncomplicated theft of elections and should be transparent to anyone. Even the most apathetic American will be pissed.

[samsingh]

49. this is a true threat to democrasy

[Bucky]

50. If you could get all the states to do this, I'd be okay with it.

But if you break up Pennsylvania's Electoral votes, then break up Texas's too. If you break up Virginia's, then break up Missouri's. Break up Georgia's if you break up Ohio's.

Of course with all those western states, the GOP will always start with a higher base line of states that are never in play, but that's kind of the status quo if you keep the winner take all system.

[riverbendviewgal]

51. there must be a plan to move huge numbers of progressives to these gerrymandered districts

Move them from then majority progressive states that can spare them. Wild idea but it could work.

[CdnExtraNational]

54. Honestly I don't understand why you already accept undemocratic rule

The house is already, in my humble opinion, been stolen by gerrymandering and thus not representative of the people.

I for one can't understand why the media isn't already all over this, and the people aren't already in the streets.
If the house of representatives doesn't actually represent the majority, and particularly through documented tampering of the election system...

Democracy is already lost in the United States of America!

It's natural for those who benefit from this to continue to use their unnatural advantages to continue gaming the system, and so the electoral college will be the next to fall, and then the supreme court, and then the senate.

I signed up just to post my grave concerns because I can't believe this is happening unchecked. In Egypt people take to the streets daily to try to sway their government towards democracy.
I'm a Canadian Extra National and I do a lot of IT work through my company in the United States and across the world in banana republics. I have seen vote buying in mass in the first person, and I've seen how corruption and politics work together to extend the advantage that the rich have over the poor. I have also had the privilege of handing a hard-working young man from simple beginnings pay-cheques that gradually change the life of him and his family; not because of the money, but because of the confidence he built in getting it.

It just starts in apathy and the next thing you know there's no jobs for anybody except the families of the well connected.

[HiPointDem]

60. +1

[Zorra]

68. Apathy, yes. Those of us who took to the streets as Occupy exhorted our fellow citizens

to come out and join us repeatedly.

Hopefully, as things continue to decline, enough people will come to understand the necessity of serious direct action, and the futility of of relying on our compromised corporate sponsored representatives to bring about the change that needs to happen.

And maybe they'll stand with us on the next go round.

[hay rick]

57. Another small step.

We would go from elections with no real choice to no real elections. Maybe this time I'll get really pissed off.

[blkmusclmachine]

58. Bipartisanship You Can Believe In

[peace frog]

62. Stop those mofos butt cold...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172447/three-strategies-stop-gerrymandering-electoral-college#

[Coyotl]

63. This is racism in its purest sense, disenfranchising black communities by gerrymandering them.

A return to 3/5ths of a vote for the slaves is a good analogy for this one!

[humbled_opinion]

65. They have no clue what Democracy is...

I think if they do this they are inviting insurrection. Do they think that the poor and minorities in the major population centers of those states are just going to allow that to happen..... LOL idiots.

[daybranch]

66. Better late than never

Where was all this concern when we Buckeye democrats were working so hard to elect President Obama for the good of the country while necessarily reducing the effort we could put into amending our state constitution to stop the political gerrymandering. It is amazing to me that when gerrymandering allowed our state legislature to send 3 republicans for each democrat to the US House of representatives although more voted for democrats than republicans, this inequity only became noted after its effects on national issues and Obama's agenda became evident. We warned Organizing for America here i Ohio that we should put effort into this as well as the Obama campaign but they never listened and gave little to no help to us even as we worked so hard for Obama and Sherrod Brown, our democratic senator. While we tried to explain the possible impacts of the amendment failing. and its connection to Obama's agenda, we began to see an organization that while a bit supportive of the progressive ideas that had brought Obama into the presidency was displaying those traits of cognitive dissonance we usually associate with republican leadership. Who would have thought that the organization of progressives would become more of a cu]lt of personality with a single minded focus on a progressive leaning pragmatist. We democrats became so enamored of a good leader that we failed to recognize that we must always be democrats with a small "d".
Now the elections are over and what are we to do? Fortunately we recognize how the republicans gerrymandered Ohio and other states to maintain control of the House of Representatives and obviously they do not have to listen to the people in those gerrymandered states. But gerrymandering is wrong- no matter where it occurs- Illinois, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin , Ohio, or California to name some states. We are democrats favoring democracy throughout our country and therefore must stop gerrymandering by either party.
Where we lost once by insufficient effort and divided attention, we have started anew. In Greene County, Ohio, democrats are signing up to work and to win. Check out how we are organizing if you want to start organizing in other counties and other states to kill this evil gerrymandering. If you have an OFA organization nearby ask them what they are doing and if such efforts are in the President's agenda and if so when, and if not why not? Lets be Americans and get er done.

[PATRICK]

69. This should be a no-brainer

simpler to scoff out of existence than Internet voting, but the point is no evil promoted by the GOP is called out. Only their own degenerating judgment and basic cowardice limits their plans.

The problem with the electoral college that everyone sees is potential injustice and unfairness when the popular vote loser becomes the winner for the status of some incredibly insignificant sovereign state. Seems we are no longer allowed to consider the political manipulation of the electoral math game when it is done by the GOP so bringing up the electoral college is about as easy as proposing gun control or expanding medicare for all.

A "reform" which aggravates all the evils in partisan service should at least have review of constitutionality and the general problem. Instead it is a new lunacy to fight back somehow while blindfolded with one hand tied behind the back- if at all.

The losing voters in each gerrymandered district are now doubly disenfranchised in order to hit the national population. The House of UnRepresentatives might as well have the sole constitutional power to vote for the President. And the whole issue of a locality, any locality modifying national rules to take partisan advantage over the rest of the country is a pretty big loophole to ignore.

Some people here have argued for the proportionial awarding of state electors based on the entire state tally. Somehow they failed to see what would happen if only some states did that to aid a partisan formula. But this GOP proposal is bald-faced crazy and makes the worst happen INSIDE the state itself. States of their choosing of course.

If this was properly countered it should backfire into a new war against their mathematically evident gerrymandering. Instead they launched from their sole refuge of viability to use it as an assault against everything else they don't already own.

This is the same tactic they have the entitlement to get away with in this country, based on absurd but destructive corporate "boldness" initiatives to win the pie contest with mud pies, then throw them in our faces.