Florida House Speaker speaks out against GOP plans to steal elections

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by Phokus

I gotta say, the GOP has a lot of Chutzpah to try to disenfranchise minority votes then wonder aloud how they can bring minorities into the fold to vote for them.

That's like stepping on someone's throat will simultaneously attempting to give them a hand up.

[GarfieldtheCat]

Funny how it's always the same 2 or 3 people always blindly defending anything sleazy that the GOP does.

[zanejohnson]

jeez folks get with the times... alqueada said fox news will die.. and it is.

i just turned it on for a second... still obama bashing with no basis.. flipped it back off.

[hal2kilo]

Originally Posted by zanejohnson

jeez folks get with the times... alqueada said fox news will die.. and it is.

i just turned it on for a second... still obama bashing with no basis.. flipped it back off.

It's really funny, turning onto the Fox Noise channel never disappoints. I think maybe just maybe they might get a news story in without getting an anti-Obama jab in, or just a libruls suck jab in, but no, it's always the same distorted dribble.

[Zebo]

Originally Posted by Phokus

Proof is in the pudding, the GOP has been trying hard to keep blacks and other minorities from being able to vote (just look at the insanely long lines in Florida, mostly in black districts).

Keep denying though.

they try to disenfranchise young too. Basically any democrat leaning. like that Texas voter ID Law, which accepts hunting licenses but not student IDs even though both are issued by state agencies.

[Oldgamer]

I personally think we need to just have it decided by National popular vote and be done with the confusing, outdated electoral college vote.

[shira]

Republicans are consistently the party of, "if we can come up with enough anti-democratic schemes to win the election, even though we get a minority of the votes, let's do it." If you want further evidence of GOP sleeze, just consider what happened this past Monday in the Virginia state senate:

The state senate in Virginia is divided 20-20 between Democrats and Republicans. On Monday, state Senator Henry L. Marsh III (a Democrat) attended Obama's inauguration. On that day . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...5e7_story.html

Without notice Monday, Senate Republicans took up a bill that had called for minor “technical adjustments” to House district lines and amended it on the floor so that it changed lines for all 40 Senate seats. The bill created a new majority-black district but also made at least eight other districts more heavily Republican.

Without delay, the senate vote was held, and it passed along strict party lines, 20-19.

The effect of this bill? It will change the outcome of the next Virginia election such that instead of there being a 20-20 tie in the state senate, there will instead be a 27-13 Republican supermajority. That's right, folks. Virginia is an evenly-split state. But the GOP think that if they can get away with a dirty trick like this one, they can create a supermajority that can pass any bill it wants.

And guess what bill they plan on passing once they have this supermajority? The Virginia GOP wants to change the rules for awarding electoral college votes from "winner take all" to awarding votes based on the outcomes of each of Virginia's Congressional districts. Once the newly-created GOP supermajority gets done with congressional redistricting, the state in which Obama won all 13 electoral votes in 2012 would instead split those votes 9 to the GOP candidate and 4 to the Democratic candidate. Even a Democrat who wins 60% of the popular vote in Virginia is going to win only 4 electoral votes.

And that, my friends, tells you everything you need to know about the new, improved Republican party. Who fvcking cares about the "will of the people" when the system can be manipulated such that the GOP can win elections regardless of how few votes it attracts?

But I'm sure our hard-right forum members think this disgusting power grab is just fine.

[cubby1223]

Democrats in my state of Illinois have gerry-mandered the districts to where they now control a (likely permanent) super-majority in the state legislature.

In the most recent redistricting, several pairs of incumbent Republicans saw the redistricting place them in the same district so one of the pair is guaranteed kicked out of office next election cycle.

It's what politics is and always has been. The only idiots are those who lay the blame on "the other party".

[cubby1223]

Originally Posted by shira

But I'm sure our hard-right forum members think this disgusting power grab is just fine.

It's called life. If the Republicans don't power grab, the Democrats will continue to power grab. It is the game of politics. It is what politicians and political parties do.

You are never going to eliminate power grabs. The best you can hope for is that over the long run the power grabs balance out between the two major parties.



In a two party system, you can win an election one of two ways, either (A) winning over the voting public by doing what's best for the public, or (B) convincing the voting public that "the other side" is too disgusting to vote for.

History has proven that the latter is far more effective than the former.

[shira]

Originally Posted by cubby1223

Democrats in my state of Illinois have gerry-mandered the districts to where they now control a (likely permanent) super-majority in the state legislature.

In the most recent redistricting, several instances pairs of strong incumbent Republicans saw the redistricting place them in the same district so one of the pair is guaranteed kicked out of office next election cycle.

It's what politics have become. The only idiots are those who lay the blame on "the other party".

Oh, puleeze. Obama won Illinois 57 to 41 over Romney. Redistricting the state isn't going to change the number of electoral votes a Democratic presidential nominee is going to win in Illinois - it will be 20 electoral votes regardless.

Compare this with Virginia: Obama won the popular vote in Virginia 51 to 48, and was awarded all 13 electoral votes. If the Republicans get their way, a state that votes majority-Democrat is going to yield 4 votes to the Democrat. That's a tectonic shift. It's disgusting.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by shira

The state senate in Virginia is divided 20-20 between Democrats and Republicans. On Monday, state Senator Henry L. Marsh III (a Democrat) attended Obama's inauguration. On that day . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...5e7_story.html

Without delay, the senate vote was held, and it passed along strict party lines, 20-19.

The effect of this bill? It will change the outcome of the next Virginia election such that instead of there being a 20-20 tie in the state senate, there will instead be a 27-13 Republican supermajority. That's right, folks. Virginia is an evenly-split state. But the GOP think that if they can get away with a dirty trick like this one, they can create a supermajority that can pass any bill it wants.

And guess what bill they plan on passing once they have this supermajority? The Virginia GOP wants to change the rules for awarding electoral college votes from "winner take all" to awarding votes based on the outcomes of each of Virginia's Congressional districts. Once the newly-created GOP supermajority gets done with congressional redistricting, the state in which Obama won all 13 electoral votes in 2012 would instead split those votes 9 to the GOP candidate and 4 to the Democratic candidate. Even a Democrat who wins 60% of the popular vote in Virginia is going to win only 4 electoral votes.

And that, my friends, tells you everything you need to know about the new, improved Republican party. Who fvcking cares about the "will of the people" when the system can be manipulated such that the GOP can win elections regardless of how few votes it attracts?

But I'm sure our hard-right forum members think this disgusting power grab is just fine.

I wonder if Republicans got the idea from when the Democrats in NY used their late night session to rush through their anti-gun bill?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by shira

Oh, puleeze. Obama won Illinois 57 to 41 over Romney. Redistricting the state isn't going to change the number of electoral votes a Democratic presidential nominee is going to win in Illinois - it will be 20 electoral votes regardless.

Compare this with Virginia: Obama won the popular vote in Virginia 51 to 48, and was awarded all 13 electoral votes. If the Republicans get their way, a state that votes majority-Democrat is going to yield 4 votes to the Democrat. That's a tectonic shift. It's disgusting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._from_Illinois

Actually it appears there are 6 Republican house seats. So Romney would have picked up 6 seats under the plan Republicans are using. And possibly 4 more would be up for grabs as it appears that in 2010 10 seats were Republican.

[cubby1223]

Originally Posted by shira

Oh, puleeze.

So, you were not disgusted by my example of a blatant Democrat Party power grab? Either you are against all power grabs, or you are not. You don't get to cherry pick which power grabs you support and which power grabs you despise. Republicans in Virginia are gerry-mandering the state to strengthen the Republican Party. Democrats in Illinois gerry-mandered the state to strengthen the Democratic Party.

It's hypocrisy plain and simple.



I would be curious to know how many liberals disgusted by this news here, had previously voiced support for similar changes to the electoral college after the Bush victory over Gore...

[cubby1223]

shira, I guarantee you there are Democrats in states that Romney won, who are looking at these happenings with great interest.

[cubby1223]

Just because I can...

an interesting little news article from a year and a half ago:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...opular-vote-/1

A new Gallup Poll shows a strong majority of Americans -- 62% -- favor getting rid of the Electoral College. And for the first time, Republicans now agree with Democrats and independents that the popular vote should stand...

...In a mid-December 2000 poll, Gallup found that 75% of Democrats wanted to amend the Constitution so the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the presidential election. A majority of Republicans (56%) wanted to keep the Electoral College.

What Republicans in these swing states are doing, is following the will of the people and transforming their state to a system that more accurately reflects the popular vote of the state instead of the winner-take-all approach. Isn't that what we want? For the popular vote to matter more than the electoral college tally?


Personally I would like to see the presidential election decided more closely reflective of popular vote than the winner-take-all by state approach, enacted in all 50 states, not just the few that are in the news recently. That's my stance.


All you hypocrites in this thread, seriously?

[shira]

Originally Posted by cubby1223

Just because I can...

an interesting little news article from a year and a half ago:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...opular-vote-/1



What Republicans in these swing states are doing, is following the will of the people and transforming their state to a system that more accurately reflects the popular vote of the state instead of the winner-take-all approach. Isn't that what we want? For the popular vote to matter more than the electoral college tally?


Personally I would like to see the presidential election decided more closely reflective of popular vote than the winner-take-all by state approach, enacted in all 50 states, not just the few that are in the news recently. That's my stance.


All you hypocrites in this thread, seriously?

This is BS. If this is what the Republicans wanted to do, they'd award electoral votes proportionally with the popular vote, with any "breakage" going to the candidate who gets the majority/pluarality of votes.

Contrast this with what Republicans in Virginia are actually trying to do. They want to take a state where a Democrat won a majority of the votes, and change the rules so that a candidate who receives 48% of the popular vote wins 69% of the electoral votes.

So, right, Republicans want what's fair. Sure they do That's why 56% of Republicans want to RETAIN the electoral college. Because Republicans are increasingly becoming a minority party, and they know that the electoral college + gerrymandering is their only way to win.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by cubby1223

Just because I can...

an interesting little news article from a year and a half ago:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...opular-vote-/1



What Republicans in these swing states are doing, is following the will of the people and transforming their state to a system that more accurately reflects the popular vote of the state instead of the winner-take-all approach. Isn't that what we want? For the popular vote to matter more than the electoral college tally?


Personally I would like to see the presidential election decided more closely reflective of popular vote than the winner-take-all by state approach, enacted in all 50 states, not just the few that are in the news recently. That's my stance.


All you hypocrites in this thread, seriously?

Lol. You think they are changing it to more accurately reflect the will of the people? Is that why is most (perhaps even all?) of these states Obama would have gotten fewer electoral votes than Romney despite getting more actual votes? The guy with fewer votes getting more representation is a funny way of more accurately representing the people's will.

It is a naked power grab, period. The only upside is that it is so blatant and so absurd that if they passed it they might prompt enough states to pass the national popular vote compact and abolish the electoral college altogether.

[Incorruptible]

Originally Posted by cubby1223

Democrats in my state of Illinois have gerry-mandered the districts to where they now control a (likely permanent) super-majority in the state legislature.

In the most recent redistricting, several pairs of incumbent Republicans saw the redistricting place them in the same district so one of the pair is guaranteed kicked out of office next election cycle.

It's what politics is and always has been. The only idiots are those who lay the blame on "the other party".

This, Why did the OP not make a thread pointing BOTH PARTIES ARE CORRUPT?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by shira

Republicans are consistently the party of, "if we can come up with enough anti-democratic schemes to win the election, even though we get a minority of the votes, let's do it." If you want further evidence of GOP sleeze, just consider what happened this past Monday in the Virginia state senate:

The state senate in Virginia is divided 20-20 between Democrats and Republicans. On Monday, state Senator Henry L. Marsh III (a Democrat) attended Obama's inauguration. On that day . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...5e7_story.html



Without delay, the senate vote was held, and it passed along strict party lines, 20-19.

The effect of this bill? It will change the outcome of the next Virginia election such that instead of there being a 20-20 tie in the state senate, there will instead be a 27-13 Republican supermajority. That's right, folks. Virginia is an evenly-split state. But the GOP think that if they can get away with a dirty trick like this one, they can create a supermajority that can pass any bill it wants.

And guess what bill they plan on passing once they have this supermajority? The Virginia GOP wants to change the rules for awarding electoral college votes from "winner take all" to awarding votes based on the outcomes of each of Virginia's Congressional districts. Once the newly-created GOP supermajority gets done with congressional redistricting, the state in which Obama won all 13 electoral votes in 2012 would instead split those votes 9 to the GOP candidate and 4 to the Democratic candidate. Even a Democrat who wins 60% of the popular vote in Virginia is going to win only 4 electoral votes.

And that, my friends, tells you everything you need to know about the new, improved Republican party. Who fvcking cares about the "will of the people" when the system can be manipulated such that the GOP can win elections regardless of how few votes it attracts?

But I'm sure our hard-right forum members think this disgusting power grab is just fine.

You mean that because someone was out of town those nasty politicians took action that wasn't fair? Sounds like what Obama did with his recess appointments doesn't it? Except that the Court ruled that what Obama did was unconstitutional! At least what the Republicans did was legal.

[cubby1223]

Chances that these reforms actually happen in the states being discussed? 0.0001%.

Chances that the progressive left will continue to be outraged over this until Maddow presents the new outrage story of the week? 99.9999%

[Paratus]

So in PA Republicans tried voter ID for non existent fraud.

In Ohio they tried limiting voting hours in Democratic leaning precincts.

In Florida they limited voting days which affected heavily populated democratic precincts.

In Virginia they want proportional distribution of EC votes where Romney won nothing last time.

In Nebraska they dropped proportional voting where Obama did win one.

And we've got folks here who will of course see no evil?



Did I get this right?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by Paratus

In Florida they limited voting days which affected heavily populated democratic precincts.

In Florida they allowed 8 early voting days (8 more than blue states such as Minnesota). This still was not enough for Democratic counties that were too stupid to setup enough equipment for their voters that took 40 min to fill out a ballot

Originally Posted by Paratus

In Nebraska they dropped proportional voting where Obama did win one.

I can find no source for this.

Originally Posted by Paratus

Did I get this right?

Nope. At least 2 points appear to be incorrect.

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally Posted by cubby1223

What Republicans in these swing states are doing, is following the will of the people and transforming their state to a system that more accurately reflects the popular vote of the state instead of the winner-take-all approach. Isn't that what we want? For the popular vote to matter more than the electoral college tally?

Quoted for blind partisan ignorance.

Link

How can you say that, when according to this proposed VA law, that despite Obama winning 51-47 (4 points ahead), he would only get 4 out of 13 electoral votes?

Obama would have gotten 51% of popular vote, and only 30.7% of electoral college votes

Care to explain this as the "will of the people"....perhaps you meant "will of the GOP"?

[Paratus]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

In Florida they allowed 8 early voting days (8 more than blue states such as Minnesota). This still was not enough for Democratic counties that were too stupid to setup enough equipment for their voters that took 40 min to fill out a ballot



I can find no source for this.



Nope. At least 2 points appear to be incorrect.

Is Florida Minnesota? Do they have the same population density? The same number of rural precincts and city precincts? Why should what works for Minnesota work for Florida?

Why do you intentionally play dumb?


As for Nebraska I was only paraphrasing what others have posted in this thread. I have not confirmed for myself.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by GarfieldtheCat

How can you say that, when according to this proposed VA law, that despite Obama winning 51-47 (4 points ahead), he would only get 4 out of 13 electoral votes?

Obama would have gotten 51% of popular vote, and only 30.7% of electoral college votes

Care to explain this as the "will of the people"....perhaps you meant "will of the GOP"?

And currently Romney got 47% of the vote and got zero electoral votes care to explain this as the "will of the people"?

Romney won a majority of the vote in 9 congressional districts and yet got no electoral votes care to explain this as the "will of the people"... perhaps you meant "will of Democratic voting districts"?

Perhaps if Democrats stopped chastising people for "clinging to their guns and religion" they would be able to win support outside of a few concentrated urban areas.