About

You're viewing one of 40,737 blog entries. Click here to read some more.

Other views

Recent Comments
Comments By...
Last 100 Entries
Read Chronologically
Random Entry
Random Image
View by Category
Mobile Edition


Ad

Advertise Here



Thursday, 15 September, 2011

Beating Obama
(with comments)

If your side is going to lose an election, just change the rules: The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012.

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.

Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor,Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)

In theory, this change could determine the election.


Permalink | Posted in Politics |

- Reader Comments -

Following are comments in response to this item.
The most recent comment is at the bottom.

  1. By Uncle. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @07:48am:
    Really, the electoral collage is obsolete. It was set up at a time when there wasn't the technology to count every vote.

    Now that we can count every vote, we need to make every vote count.
  2. By Snowbody. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @08:36am:
    The electoral college was set up to make sure that the unwashed masses couldn't have too much control over who was elected President, that politics would remain safely within the control of wealthy landowners.
  3. By kashmarek. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @08:42am:
    Fat chance on getting that changed to the point where it will make a difference. Standard GOP fare. Change the rules so they benefit their side. I am sure the Dems will resist. The GOP is already attempting to out a large number of middle and lower class voters to keep them influencing the election.

    -----------------

    12 12 12 12 oh when is it going to stop (in less than 30 days it seems)
  4. By spellucci. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @09:17am:
    In theory, this change could determine the election.

    Not much. Either a Democratic or a Republican president will be elected, and really, how different will they be?
  5. By Ense. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @09:51am:
    If every state split the electors, then the system would be as fair as if no state did,

    If a medium to large population state that usually goes for the Democratic candidate splits its electors, that could very easily tip the election to the Republicans. OTOH, if Texas split its electors, Obama would almost certainly win,

    So I cay Pennsylvania can do it only if Texas does it too. Finally! My vote would count.
  6. By FutureHistory. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @10:11am:
    Obama's chances for re-election: 0%.

    Hands down, the worst President in U.S. history.
  7. By Stu1320. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @10:19am:
    By FutureHistory. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @10:11am:


    Hands down, the worst President in U.S. history.


    How quickly you forget that total piece of chit W by FAR the Worst
  8. By Dave Kelly. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @11:08am:
    You MUST bind the electoral collage delegate casting the vote to vote as the mass vote of his state so elected.

    This binding can be for the first round of voting or for x rounds or forever.

    Your responsibility as a voter doesn't end at the ballot box.
  9. By RobR. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @11:58am:
    Obama's chances for re-election: 0%.

    Hands down, the worst President in U.S. history.


    Must be true. In three years he's been unable to fix the mess it took eight years for his predecessor to get us into.
  10. By Evil Klown. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @02:22pm:
    Yes, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison ... what a bunch of dunces. Whatever were they thinking when they put that electoral college in the constitution?

    Why, oh why didn't they want the President elected by popular vote? Must be because they wanted to help the rich ... yes ... nobody could have seen through that little trick.

    Meanwhile, you libs can scream "it's not our fault" all you want. The American people are going to be focused on ripping your greasy mitts off our lives and kicking your snooty, self-proclaimed-genius butts out of the government.

    I agree with Senator Mike Lee: Tea party's 2012 performance 'will make 2010 look like a Sunday picnic.'

    I can't wait. Start practicing minding your own business.
  11. By Al. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @02:28pm:
    Evil Klown, You're the BEST. You Rock
  12. By Alice Shrugged. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @02:29pm:
    Must be true. In three years he's been unable to fix the mess it took eight years for his predecessor to get us into.


    Not only has he been unable to fix it, he's made it much worse than anyone could have ever imagined.
  13. By Patricio. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @02:49pm:
    I'm starting to wish that grandpa and caribou barbie won instead of Obama. Teabaggers won't let Obama try and fix anything in this country so they can keep pointing the finger at him and say things like this:
    Obama's chances for re-election: 0%.
    Hands down, the worst President in U.S. history.

    Wonderful. Good luck, teabaggers. Now when you win in 2012 and finally flush the middle class down the toilet, you can blame those over-educated smarty-pants libs and the muslim negro commie guy. Go for it. Since I make my living off the top 1%, I'll be fine. You won't though. Don't worry, maybe I'll create a job for you cleaning my house or picking up doggie mess in my front lawn or something. Or, you could work for the Koch brothers in their toilet paper factory.
  14. By chazunga. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @03:51pm:
    After all the caterwauling when crazy Al won the popular vote but lost the election in 2000, Democrats couldn't wait to get rid of the electoral college. The victory of 2008 gave them enough votes to possibly do something -- but that something was Obamacare, not electoral college reform.
  15. By Patricio. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @04:34pm:
    After all the caterwauling when crazy Al won the popular vote but lost the election in 2000

    I believe the caterwauling was mostly about the Republicans stealing the election in Florida and hijacking the will of the American people. But hey, who cares, Bush won and mission accomplished, baby!
  16. By deciBelcat. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @06:07pm:

    Yes, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison ... what a bunch of dunces. Whatever were they thinking when they put that electoral college in the constitution?

    Why, oh why didn't they want the President elected by popular vote? Must be because they wanted to help the rich ... yes ... nobody could have seen through that little trick.



    You conveniently forgot one sticky little fact: Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and George Washington were among the richest men in the colonies.
  17. By deciBelcat. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @06:10pm:
    The victory of 2008 gave them enough votes to possibly do something -- but that something was Obamacare, not electoral college reform.


    More than anything else, that something was trying to compromise with the republicans. They should have taken the approach that FDR did in 1933 - Pass the legislation and deal with the critics later.
  18. By chazunga. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @08:27pm:
    Pass the legislation and deal with the critics later.

    Welcome to later.
  19. By mrclam. Comment posted 15-Sep-2011 @10:02pm:
    You are arguing over nothing. Spellucci had it right when he said Either a Democratic or a Republican president will be elected, and really, how different will they be?
  20. By Evil Klown. Comment posted 16-Sep-2011 @05:37am:
    deciBelcat: ... were among the richest men in the colonies.

    And this means what? Isn't Obama among the richest people? It kills me how you libs equate "rich/profit/oil/etc" with "evil." Baaaaa- bleat.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.