Sunday, January 27, 2013

Looks like they're getting worried . . .

Yesterday I pointed out that the Huffington Post had verified my opinion about proposed modifications to the electoral college process, which I'd suggested earlier might be a way for supporters of Second Amendment rights to retaliate against the Democratic Party for its wilful disregard of our rights and its attack on principles we hold dear.

It seems that the progressive standard-bearer, Talking Points Memo, gets it too - in fact, the TPM article may have inspired HuffPo's effort.

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.

. . .

... 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 thoughthey 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.

There's more at the link.

Come on, NRA - get behind this!  If they want to attack us where we live, let's return the favor - with interest!  I'm not pro-Republican, and I doubt whether many gun-owners are after the way that party's treated us;  but we're surely anti-Democrat right now, since they're so clearly anti-us - so what are you waiting for?



Anonymous said...

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

bmq215 said...

Let's just go with the majority vote and be done with it. Any victory based on gerrymandering or electoral nonsense is hollow and contrary to the ideals of democracy.

Anonymous said...

"Any victory based on gerrymandering or electoral nonsense is hollow and contrary to the ideals of democracy."

That might invalidate an awful lot of previously elected individuals, including the current resident of the White House. What you're suggesting would permanently give urban centers all the decision-making power. You may be aware that urban life and lifestyles can be very different than the way folks live in most of the country (geographically speaking); a lot of us in flyover country might object rather strenuously. Those urban centers have too much of that control now, and I think Peter's suggestion has merit.


Will said...


didn't learn anything in school, did you? Granted, they don't teach much American history, as they don't want people like you to learn anything. This isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. The founders thought that democracies were bad news.

bmq215 said...

Will, I'm well aware that this is a Republic and not a Democracy. On the other hand, I'm allowed to desire and representational system I would like. To me direct representation makes a heckuva lot more sense than any other system I can think up. And it's always nice to hear intelligent discourse begin with condescension.

And Goatroper, that's very true. It would change the political landscape and make for very different elections. On the other hand, as you pointed out the results of our current election would be different and I think a lot of us in the flyover states would be rather more pleased. Either way there is the "danger" of the wrong political party winning, but at least this way it's a "pure" victory as opposed to one decided by who was best able to rig the districts.