I don't usually run two posts in a row from the same source, but frankly, this topic is important. And to be honest, a clip from The Rachel Maddow Show is probably the easiest-to-swallow way to take your medicine, if you haven't heard of this issue. Rachel has a way of distilling a lecture into something you want to learn. And this one is a doozy. [Story continues below]
If you didn't know, the Republican victory in the House of Representatives in the 2012 election was achieved by gerrymander. More people voted for Democratic candidates total, but because of the hinky way that Congressional districts are drawn up, more Republicans were elected. This rubs me the wrong way, but is semi-tolerable, because by district, the Republican actually did win. The quarrel is only with how the districts are drawn. But, given the GOP desire to turn several "blue" states into "red" states--by changing the way electoral votes are divided--gives me more pause. With that scheme, the district gets the spoils, and ends in a result where the statewide winner can lose huge chunks of electoral votes even though he/she carried the state.
The fact of the matter is, had this scheme been in place in 2012, Mitt Romney would be getting inaugurated this weekend, despite losing by millions of votes. This sort of scheming could only be done by a party that doesn't care what voters think. It can only be done by a party that puts winning and power ahead of the wants, needs and desires of the American people. My question is this: do American conservatives and Republicans care? Or are they also willing to "win" at any cost, even if they really lost? Any conservatives want to tell me (Dan?).
If you didn't know, the Republican victory in the House of Representatives in the 2012 election was achieved by gerrymander. More people voted for Democratic candidates total, but because of the hinky way that Congressional districts are drawn up, more Republicans were elected. This rubs me the wrong way, but is semi-tolerable, because by district, the Republican actually did win. The quarrel is only with how the districts are drawn. But, given the GOP desire to turn several "blue" states into "red" states--by changing the way electoral votes are divided--gives me more pause. With that scheme, the district gets the spoils, and ends in a result where the statewide winner can lose huge chunks of electoral votes even though he/she carried the state.
The fact of the matter is, had this scheme been in place in 2012, Mitt Romney would be getting inaugurated this weekend, despite losing by millions of votes. This sort of scheming could only be done by a party that doesn't care what voters think. It can only be done by a party that puts winning and power ahead of the wants, needs and desires of the American people. My question is this: do American conservatives and Republicans care? Or are they also willing to "win" at any cost, even if they really lost? Any conservatives want to tell me (Dan?).
On the other hand, had this scheme been in place in 2000, I believe Al Gore would have won the election. Apportioning Electoral College votes by Congressional District rather than by State should result in the EC results more closely tracking the national popular vote. It would also diminish the importance of swing states, since there would be hundreds of swing districts rather than a handful of swing states. Democrats should be pushing for the same reforms in red-leaning States with heavily blue urban areas.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I agree. Not entirely, anyway. You've got Pennsylvania trying this, a blue state that would go red with this plan. Ohio would too. Virginia. Nevada. Maybe others. Would we pick up any red states with this kind of plan? Maybe, but nobody's trying to change the maps in those states!
ReplyDeleteI know we have two states that already do things this way. But I think a re-jiggering of several other states would be very confusing, would result in major popular vote/electoral vote discrepencies. . . I think the only way it would work--and be fair--is if congressional districts WERE NOT gerrymandered.
I agree that CDs should not be gerrymandered -- I wish every State used a panel of retired judges to draw new district maps. However, I believe it is a false assumption that the party preference of Presidential votes will exactly track Congressional votes. Californians elected a Republican Governator who would not have been considered a Republican in Alabama. Many of those who voted for Arnold would have been reluctant to vote for a national Republican like Rick Santorum. The exit polls during Wisconsin's gubenatorial recall election last June indicated that a significant portion of those who voted for Scott Walker planned to vote for President Obama in November. Some of them also voted for Tammy Baldwin over Tommy Thompson. Just as Republicans miscalculated that voter ID laws and restrictions on early voting would depress the African-American turnout rather than fire it up, I believe they are miscalculating that Congressional gerrymanders would carry over to Presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that it could backfire on them. But I'm disturbed by the deliberate rigging they're attempting. It's a naked attempt to thwart the will of the people. I'm interested to see how they dress it up to look like freedom fries with liberty sauce. Of course, there was no attempt to justify cutting back early voting in 2012, so maybe they will just steamroll it through.
ReplyDelete