Look at that, look at the numbers up there – it would be close, but if the 2012 election was operated under these new rules, the election would swing to Romney.
This is astounding.
Basically, the Republican Party’s new strategy for the future? Change the rules, not the message. They need to change the rules of the process just to win. That’s pathetic. And sleazy. Which is why it’s being called in this article “rigging” the vote.
Now, alone such a move might not be so heinous. After all, if our current winner-take-all system automatically disenfranchises Democrats in solid-Republican states and vice-versa, why not move toward more of a proportional representation allocation?
But ah, we forgot about redistricting gerrymandering, a process in which Republicans had the upper hand as they swept the 2010 mid-term election. I say “gerrymandering” because in most states, whoever controls the State Legislature controls the process – it’s only given to independent or bipartisan committees in six of 50 states.
Had Democrats won more state assemblies, they would’ve reaped the spoils, as well. But this time around, it was the Republicans’ ballgame.
It was also a factor that they knew, according to a Republican State Leadership Committee summary report, helped them retain control of the House. And the new districts are set until after the 2020 census.
It’s a shame, though. Rather than figure out if it was their message, if not just the messenger, that failed them, it seems some among the Republican Party leadership prefer to use tactics that are just this side of legal for future elections.
So much for soul-searching. So much for learning lessons and adapting appropriately. “We don’t have to change; the rules have to change because they’re just not fair to us! And we’ll change the so that they benefit us.” I didn’t hear not one of them complaining about any of this, of course, before Obama’s re-election. Which is perhaps why it just makes me so much more critical of these apparent plans.
It’s not just a case of the sore loser blues. It’s a ridiculous exercise in continued self-delusion and rejection of even the mere possibility that maybe, just maybe, people just think the product they’ve been selling lately just plain sucks. I didn’t expect too much self-analysis or rebranding, especially not from Reince Priebus, and sure enough, I was right not to hold my breath.
For the record, I’m in favor of abolishing the Electoral College altogether and making presidential election direct – presidency goes to the winner of the popular vote. Incidentally, in 2012, that would still mean Obama won.
However, if we are going to change the way we determine presidential election, I like FairVote’s idea of implementing a National Popular Vote plan. Their concept of it would allow states to approve changes but not have them kick in until enough states that would possess a majority of Electoral College votes (270) gave approval to such changes. It seems reasonable. Not this blatant new rigging strategy.
For comparison to the map on top of this post, here is what the actual election night map and Electoral College count looked like. Major difference. Not surprised Republicans are none too pleased but come on. Can you be any more obvious?
via What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans’ Vote-Rigging Plan on HuffPost.
