Subscribe via RSS Feed

Virginia Electoral Theft

[ 35 ] January 30, 2013 |

Apparently dead for now. The key phrase being “for now”; the electoral college remains awful.

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. c u n d gulag says:

    Yeah – for now…

    Until Frank Luntz and the rest of their PR crew can figure out a way to market this better to the non-rubes.

    After all, right now, they can be accused of trying to “redistribute” the Electoral College votes.

    How do these work?
    ‘Heartland Reapportionment.’
    ‘Rural Empowerment.”

    Wait, I’ve got it!: “The Heartland Empowerment Act.”

    • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

      “End the Death Ballot!”

      “The Fair Votes Initiative”

      “Make Every Vote Count”

      “Empower Excellence”

    • drkrick says:

      I think even the Virginia GOP figured out “it’s not fair that the people who vote in the majority get to outvote the people who vote in the minority” wasn’t a winning argument.

      It’s surprising to find there’s really is a limit to how low they will stoop, but in the past that’s proven to be a moving target.

  2. MR Bill says:

    Collegium Electorum delenda est.

    • pete says:

      I would have thought “Conlegium electorum” though a quick Gazoogle suggests “Collegium electorale” but in either case it should be “delendum” — Carthago is feminine, hence the “a” ending.

      I strongly recommend adopting some variant of this for the end of all posts about Presidential politics.

  3. rea says:

    We could vastly improve our gerrymandering problem AND the electoral college by doubling the size of the House of Representatives.

    • Jameson Quinn says:

      Improve, yes. But that would mostly help in other ways. On these two issues, the difference is marginal.

      • rea says:

        Not true–by almost doubling the number of electoral votes (each state still has two for its senators) it becomes much harder to gerrymander them (and the disproportionate weight given to smaller states gets reduced).

  4. Rarely Posts says:

    I’m immensely relieved. Even the modern Republican party managed to realize that there are serious dangers to rigging the system to make it more likely that a candidate who won the popular vote by a substantial margin would still lose the election. It really would threaten the legitimacy of our government to a new degree (and Bush v. Gore already shook a lot of people’s confidence in the system). The electoral college, gerrymandering, and the Senate already rig things in favor of the Republicans — if they push for more rigging in their favor, there is a risk that it could come tumbling down eventually.

  5. Uncle Kvetch says:

    Meh. Once JenBob CarbonTruth said it was a done deal, I knew it was toast.

  6. Anon21 says:

    Wisconsin looks like the bigger danger at this point. (Walker’s on the record in support.) Although if only one state does it, it probably won’t affect the 2016 outcome.

    • Anon21 says:

      Actually, to be fair to Walker (ha!), I think his statement was something along the lines of “It’s worth considering.” If that’s his opening bid, I can’t seriously believe he’d veto it if it passed the legislature, but I suppose it’s not a declaration of support.

    • sharculese says:

      On the other hand, Dave Weigel pointed out that of the states considering this, WI needs the smallest number of Republican defectors to ensure it doesn’t pass.

  7. sharculese says:

    My assumption from the start was that enough VA pols were going to decide having this on their permanent record was bad for their national ambitions, but it’s still a relief to hear it’s over.

  8. sapient says:

    It’s good that they rejected the electoral college bill, but they haven’t yet rejected the horrific mid-decade redistricting bill that was passed in order to disenfranchise democratic voters, the bill that they passed on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day when an African-American state senator was at the Inauguration, and then they adjourned the session in memory of Stonewall Jackson.

    There’s still something to fight.

    • Just Dropping By says:

      and then they adjourned the session in memory of Stonewall Jackson.

      But Loomis assured us that the South is not significantly different from the North in its racist habits!

      • spencer says:

        A handful of reactionary state legislators != “The South.”

        By your logic, we could smear The West for every idiotic, racist thing someone does or says in the Arizona state lege.

        But no, this kind of thinking only gets applied to the south. Asshole.

      • jalrin says:

        If the White South was as racist as the snobs think, these disenfranchisement measures would not be necessary in heavily majority white Southern States. As it is, the overlords only keep the African American/ White populist liberal alliance at bay through the use of these forms of corruption.

        • sapient says:

          I don’t believe that the “south” is racist, but the racists certainly still have political control of a lot of the south. The Virginia legislature, for example, showed its racism on Inauguration Day. Not just a couple of them, but many of them. In fact, a majority of them.

  9. McKingford says:

    I just posted this in the other thread before seeing this one…

    I keep coming back to this point, but I can’t help but think that one of the reasons this ploy is being abandoned is that it doesn’t actually work (and if it doesn’t work, the horrible optics aren’t worth it).

    Yes, this type of manipulation would have made it a closer election (as far as EVs are concerned – it otherwise WAS a close election). But it still would not have given Romney the win. The problem with this ploy is that although it makes the EV count much closer, it keeps it close (but result unchanged) even as the GOP vote creeps up to 50%. In short, in order for the GOP to win, it would *still* have to win states like Virginia and Ohio. And since it *has* to win those states, it doesn’t make any sense to give up any of the electoral votes to the Dems – you want the full bounty of all those states’ electoral votes.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

      Yes. This strategy would be most effective if it were applied not to battleground states, but rather to solidly blue states that the GOP stands no chance to win outright. But Republicans don’t control any of these states.

      • elm says:

        Pennsylvania is closest to that: Obama won by 5.5 in 2012, over 10 in 08, Kerry by 2.5, and Gore by over 4. It’s a state that Republicans keep thinking they can win, and they do usually manage to keep it somewhat close, enough so that the Democrats do need to play defense, but if they ever do win PA again, it will probably be as part of a blowout.

        In other words, PA is highly unlikely to be the tipping point state for a R-win. Thus, siphoning off even a few D electoral votes would be useful to the R’s.

        • Anon21 says:

          In other words, PA is highly unlikely to be the tipping point state for a R-win.

          In the last election, I believe it was literally the most likely state to have been the tipping point for a Romney victory, tracking Obama’s national popular vote margin almost exactly. So maybe that was an aberration with a black candidate on the ballot and some of the more Appalachia-leaning parts of the state all fired up. But it may also point to more durable demographic changes that will make Pennsylvania an easier get for the GOP that Colorado, Virginia, and perhaps Ohio and Wisconsin for the foreseeable future.

          In a crassly tactical sense, I think Pennsylvania is probably one of the best states for Republicans to target with this scheme.

        • rea says:

          They do seem to have thought on election day that they were going to win Pennsylvania, although why they thought that is hard to understand. Sometimes it helps that the other side doesn’t believe in science, logic, or reason.

          • drkrick says:

            They thought they could win because they believed in unskewed polls. I’m slightly surprised the political types didn’t understand how faulty that approach was, but completely amazed their polling people didn’t explain it to them.

          • Hogan says:

            They fell for the Nate Silver double reverse.

  10. bexley says:

    This is good news for John McCain.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site