Daily Archives: January 24, 2013

January 24, 2013 · 9:01 PM

The GOP’s Plan to Rig the Electoral College & Steal the White House

Rachel Maddow sounded the alarm on this effort earlier this week.  Now it has taken hold in “mainstream media” reports as well…

ThinkProgress War Room

Republican politicians have a big problem. Their massively unpopular policiesand offensive rhetoric about minorities, women, and LGBT people havealienated vast swaths of the electorate, making it increasingly difficult for them to win national elections. And these problems are only getting worse as the country’s attitudes evolves and its demographics change. In fact, the Republican candidate has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. The Republicans’ Solution: Re-Write the Rules to Game the System and Rig Elections Instead of addressing their fundamental problems, Republican politicians have instead devoted themselves to re-writing the rules and rigging the game:

  • Make it Harder to Vote: Republican politicians are engaged in a systematic campaign to change voting laws and election procedures in order make it harder for young people, minorities, and others likely to vote Democratic to vote.
  • Gerrymander: Because of partisan gerrymandering after the 2010 Census, Republicans have a structural advantage when it comes to the House of Representatives. Even though more than a million more people voted for Democrats for the House in 2012, Republicans still managed to hold on to the House with a 15-seat majority.
  • Rig the Game: Now Republican-controlled swing states are trying to rig the Electoral College in order to steal the White House.

How It Works

  • Red States Stay the Same: Truly red states keep the current winner-take-all system, thus delivering all of their electoral votes to the Republican candidate.
  • Swing States Get Divided Up: Swing states currently controlled by Republicans (VA, OH, WI, MI, PA, NC, and FL) will award their electoral votes by Congressional District. Through gerrymandering, Republicans have managed to pack Democrats into a small number of districts, giving the GOP a large advantage in the aggregate number of House seats they hold in these states.
  • Bonus Votes for Republicans: In some versions of this plan, the two remaining electoral votes in each state that are not associated with a House district would still be awarded to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Virginia, however, has an even more pernicious plan; its plan would award the other two votes to the winner of a majority of the state’s congressional districts. If other swing states adopted this plan, it could shift an extra dozen or more electoral votes to the Republican candidate — a number equivalent to the electoral votes of Virginia or the votes of Iowa and Nevada combined.

The Result — President Romney

The GOP plan to rig the Electoral College means that even if a Democrat wins the popular vote in a state by a comfortable margin, the Republican candidate could still walk away with as many two-thirds or even three-quarters of the state’s Electoral College votes.
If Republican-controlled swing states had put this plan into effect before the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would likely be the president today thanks to the shift in electoral votes in key states. If all of these states chose the Virginia model that gives Republicans two bonus electoral votes per state, then Mitt Romney would definitely have been the one to be sworn in this past Monday.

This Threat Is Real & Is Happening Now

This GOP plan to rig the Electoral College and steal the White House is not simply theoretical in nature. It’s a real threat to our democracy. Republicans — including two GOP governors — are actually considering this plan in several of these states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Republicans in the Virginia Senate are trying to pass just such a plan right now. For more information on this scheme, please see the full report released today by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

BOTTOM LINE: Instead of trying to win fair and square by persuading voters that their values and ideas are the best for America, Republicans are now instead trying to re-write the rules in order to rig the system in their favor and steal the White House.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Gerrymander - Swing States

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

· 4:11 PM

The Top 10 Reasons Rand Paul should never start a sentence, ‘Had I been president …’

Daily Kos

No doubt you’ve seen Sen. Rand Paul’s made-for-TV tantrum yesterday at the U.S. Senate’s Benghazi hearing. When the Kentucky senator had his turn to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he said:

“I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.”

Setting aside Sen. Paul’s thickheaded and insensitive remark that the murder of four Americans in Libya is “the worst tragedy since 9/11″—worse, for example, than 4,000 Americans killed in a pointless and costly war—his tea party toadying, “Had I been president,” should not pass without comment.

If Sen. Paul had been president, of course, the mess in Benghazi probably would’ve been a lot worse, as our embassy personnel would have had much less protection, given the GOP’s deep cuts to Secretary Clinton’s security requests. But he’s not president, and here’s why he shouldn’t even open his pie hole to entertain the possibility:

The Top 10 Reasons Rand Paul should never start a sentence, “Had I been president…”

#10. Half the audience will laugh so hard they won’t hear the rest of your comment.

#9. The other half of the audience will cry so hard your remaining words will be lost in their bawling.

#8. Security will remove you as an outside agitator, perhaps even an anarchist.

#7. Your nitwit tea party followers will have to change their “Rand Paul for Emperor” signs. (They have to change them anyway because they misspelled Emperor.)

#6. Sinners will buy up the world’s supply of coats, jackets, and blankets, anticipating hell freezing over.

#5. Michele Bachmann will sue you for “Presidential Batshit Crazy” copyright infringement.

#4. World leaders will set their nuclear missiles on high alert.

#3. Capitol police will immediately perform a breathalyzer test on you.

#2. Stocks will plunge, except for the companies that make “The End is Nigh” signs.

And the #1 reason Rand Paul should never start a sentence, “Had I been president …”

#1. Forget it, dude, ain’t gonna happen.

H/t: Yankee Clipper

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under Rand Paul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

· 12:21 AM

Videos: Hillary Clinton on the Hill

Politico

Hillary Clinton is pictured. | AP Photo

Video: Hillary Clinton on the Hill

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under State Department

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

· 12:13 AM

Secretary Of Defense Lifts Ban On Women In Combat

Many women have been fighting the system since 1994 to lift the ban on military women in combat.  It appears they finally won…

Think Progress

In a surprise move, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removed the military ban on women in combat on Wednesday. Lifting the ban will open service on the front lines to thousands of women.

According to the Associated Press, the move was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Smaller exemptions to the rule were passed in 2012, but the new decision opens up 238,000 positions where women were formerly banned.

Women have been traditionally barred from serving in ground combat units, such as infantry, artillery, armor or as special operations commandos. However, women have been serving in combat roles for years as well, as recent conflicts have blurred the lines of combat and non-combat duties. While the ACLU last year sued the Pentagon for the right for women to take up positions on the front line, and the Marines recently began allowing women to serve as officers, the timing of Panetta’s announcement comes as a surprise.

Some Republicans have opposed putting women in combat because of alleged physical inferiority to men. However, a survey of several NATO allies with women in front line roles in Afghanistan indicated that, far from causing problems, female officers actually performed better in intelligence-gathering roles than their male counterparts.

Military chiefs must report their initial implementation plans by May 15, and can request special exceptions until January 2016 for any positions they feel cannot be open to women.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Leon Panetta

Tagged as , , , , , , ,