The Republican Party’s electoral philosophy: Cheating wins

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/the_republican_partys_electoral_philosophy_cheating_wins/

Saturday, Oct 25, 2014 06:30 AM EST
The Republican Party’s electoral philosophy: Cheating wins
The explosion and enforcement of restrictive voter ID laws make this one thing very clear
Sean McElwee

snip//

But this isn’t the only time Republicans have tried to leverage state-level advantages into federal gains. After the 2010 walloping, Republicans decided they would need to tilt the odds in their favor. Using their control of state legislatures, they gerrymandered districts to ensure their victory. In 2012, Democrats actually had a larger share of the popular vote for the House of Representatives, while Republicans gained their largest House majority in 60 years. Cook Political Report noted, “House GOP Won 49 Percent of Votes, 54 Percent of Seats.” How? They cheated. Karl Rove came out and said it in an Op-Ed, writing, “He who controls redistricting can control Congress.” They won in districts that were drawn specifically to allow them to win. There were certainly other factors at play, but it’s hard to image Republicans winning as many seats without their nifty swindle.

As Tim Dickinson points out, this isn’t the end:

In a project with the explicit blessing of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, a half-dozen Republican-dominated legislatures in states that swing blue in presidential elections have advanced proposals to abandon the winner-take-all standard in the Electoral College…Thanks to the GOP’s gerrymandering, such a change would all but guarantee that a Democratic presidential candidate in a big, diverse state like Michigan would lose the split of electoral votes even if he or she won in a popular landslide.

If Republicans have their way, we’ll eventually be back to the days of the poll tax and the literacy test, where the votes of blacks, youth and the poor simply don’t count. We’re already halfway there. The Senate, with its antiquated system of two senators per state means that the largely rural, old, white and conservative Midwest and South have far more sway than liberal metropolitan areas. This gives Republicans a strong advantage in the Senate, something to remember if they win it this election.

Republicans have also made use of felony disenfranchisement to boost their electoral success. Some 5.85 million Americans are denied the vote due to felony disenfranchisement. Because of the racial bias in our criminal justice system and the war on drugs, a disproportionate share of these voters are black. One study finds that because felons are more likely to be poor and people of color, disenfranchisement benefits Republicans. The authors estimate that, “at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote.” Further, they find that such laws may have impacted control of the Senate, and even more state and local elections. It’s no surprise that in Florida, a state where 10 percent of voters can’t vote because of a felony conviction, one of Rick Scott’s first moves as governor was to tighten rules for felons trying to gain voting rights.

To a large extent, the radicalism of the Tea Party and the Republican Party at-large is due to the fact that they don’t represent the population at large; they represent a primarily white and middle- to high-income voting bloc. And that’s how Republicans want to keep it; they know they can’t win in fair race, so like Dick Dasterdly and Muttley, they set all sorts of obstacles in their opponents’ way. Hopefully, much like Dick Dasterdly and Muttley, their plan will blow up in their faces: Voters will be so angry about Republican attempts to suppress the vote that they’ll turn out in even higher numbers. Sadly, convicted felons, undocumented immigrants and many citizens without ID will still be denied the vote. In the movies, cheaters never win, for Republicans it’s been a successful electoral strategy for three decades running.

[Stuart G]

1. Thank You for posting...Yes.."Cheating Wins" is their motto and most basic belief.

The Republicans cheat because they can, and they know it will help them to win..
Nothing else matters. They believe that their beliefs are "sacred" so anything goes. No holding back, nothing. We find that hard to understand. They want to cheat cause it helps them to win. How you play doesn't matter, they must win at all costs....

An example: The contested Al Franken election. While it was close, it never stopped. They went on and on trying to reverse the results, because they felt they were destined and deserved to win, no matter what. Cheat, steal, lie..and don't you dare hit back. We are entitled to cheat and lie...only us... and you are not, is their implication. Look at the Walker race..

[ladjf]

2. Republicans regard cheating as an admirable action. nt

[malaise]

3. Come on babylonsister

They are ReTHUGs


Get thee to the greatest page.

[Botany]

4. And the media will not touch this story

In Ohio Obama and Sen. Brown both won comfortable margins because there
are more Ds then Rs in this state but only 4 or 5 out out 15 House districts
went to Ds ...... same story in PA too.

Republicans know that population demographics should send them to the dust bin of history but
they'll do what they will need to do to keep power.

[Adrahil]

5. Republicans are the "ends justifies the means" party.

It's why they support voter suppression, and think torture is a good idea.

[Iliyah]

6. K & R

[mountain grammy]

7. Please forgive the reference,

but that's how the Nazi party gained power in Germany.

[Gothmog]

8. The GOP can only win by suppressing the vote

[mvymvy]

9. 73% of Michigan Voters Support a National Popular Vote for President

Instead of changing to a district winner method for awarding electoral votes in presidential elections, as proposed by a half-dozen Republican-dominated legislatures in states that swing blue in presidential elections and considered by the Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, there is strong and broad support for The National Popular Vote bill.

National Popular Vote would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states,in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc