Ohio rigging the vote for 2016

D

deleted15807

Guest
Ohio Republicans unfazed over the legislative setbacks in the last election in their efforts to suppress the vote are hard at work looking at other ways to rig the vote.

Last year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett proposed rigging the Electoral College vote in his state through a plan that would have given the majority of the state’s electors to Romney even after President Obama carried the state. Under Corbett’s plan, the winner of each congressional district within Pennsylvania would receive a single electoral vote, and the overall winner of the state would receive an additional two electoral votes. Had this plan been in place last Tuesday, Mitt Romney would likely have won 13 of the state’s 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state overall by more than five points.

Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State Already Has A Plan To Rig The 2016 Election For Republicans
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The more they try to chip away at democracy, the more elections they will hand over to the opponents. The way for Republicans to get back in the game is to change their game plan and reach out to non-whites.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I dunno how I feel about this. In theory, it puts more the power to elect the president to the people, right? Districts are divided up prorportionally by population so it can't be said that this makes one person's vote more valuable than another's. Obviously, a political move but I think maybe there is something to be said for it. It obviously wouldn't discount the votes from heavily populated cities (where Democrats votes are the majority) and at the same time would allow areas of states that are incredibly rural and detached from the cities to be heard. It doesn't suppress vote as much as it lets more votes be heard in a sense.

It would obviously benefit Republicans in States that have gone blue in the past, but it would also benefit Democrats if a State like Texas did it. I believe in State's rights so naturally I would say to each State their own (even if the trend at a local level would be to benefit Republicans), but at the same time if it was a national plan where districts voted and that's how electoral votes went, it could revolutionize the outdated electoral college

Also, Nebraska does this with it's "Faithless Elector" where whoever gains the most votes in that region gets the vote. In 2008, even though McCain easily won Nebraska, Obama got that vote b/c that region voted for him.

As someone who agrees that we need a popular vote b/c the emphasis on swing states is too divisive and too much focus, I think this would be a small step in that direction.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I keep thinking about this. It's troubling but interesting if it's purely for non-political gain. The electoral votes from NY and CA are obviously huge b/c (and look at election maps) the great number of votes from cities (LA and NYC). If the electoral votes were divided proportionally to regions and subsets then each person's vote counts towards the electoral college count and smaller parts of states would be able to be heard as well.

While we cant disenfranchise people, I think it would be great for people who run counter to the majority's position of a State (red or blue) to be heard. Republicans would get votes in Blue States and Dems would get votes in Red States.

It seems just like we are letting more local, more hands on efforts take control of the elction process which is great (if fair, equal, and not discriminatory)
 

AtomicMouse1950

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 30, 2011
Posts
2,968
Media
22
Likes
460
Points
218
Age
73
Location
Placerville , Ca.
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The Electoral College, I don't believe can be altered by any Governor of a state. I believe that is set in stone, and can't be altered as it stands now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
I could be wrong on that. But no real effort to alter it, has ever been approved. I don't think one Governor can alter the entire system? Or that any one change by any one state can impact what the Electoral College is set up to do.
Clearly, Obama's 330 electoral votes over Romney's 206 is a clear mandate, unlike the mandate Bush claimed he had, when he got only 286 over Kerry's 251.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I got this from the National Archives:

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
 

At.your.cervix

Superior Member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Posts
2,922
Media
6
Likes
3,583
Points
208
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Last year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett proposed rigging the Electoral College vote in his state through a plan that would have given the majority of the state’s electors to Romney even after President Obama carried the state. Under Corbett’s plan, the winner of each congressional district within Pennsylvania would receive a single electoral vote, and the overall winner of the state would receive an additional two electoral votes. Had this plan been in place last Tuesday, Mitt Romney would likely have won 13 of the state’s 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state overall by more than five points.

Yet another effort by Tom Corbett to ensure a one-term-and-out political career.