Rigging the Vote 2012

Posted by on . 2 comments.

In case you haven’t heard yet, many conservative-leaning state legislatures are doing whatever they can to disenfranchise as many citizens as possible from voting in the upcoming 2012 Presidential elections. In their effort to prevent Obama from being a two-term president, they have resorted to passing all types of new laws that tweak the election system for the solitary purpose of political gain. If you’re like me, you probably believe that Democracy is about the process of fair elections and not just the outcomes. If you’re a Republican governor or legislator, there’s a good chance that you recognize democratic elections as only a means to an end.

Take for instance Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. These five states have passed strict Voter ID laws in 2011 that make it necessary for registered voters to bring a government issued photo ID with them to vote. This unquestionably disenfranchises many poor minority voters who lack any form of government ID, mainly because they don’t own an automobile and have no need for a state-issued driver’s license. These laws also make it increasingly tricky for young college students to vote. For example, “the new voter ID law in Wisconsin require the ID to show an address that matches their voting precinct when many students will have an ID that comes from their hometown.”

The headlines these days have been going to the Electoral College alterations that GOP-controlled Pennsylvania and Nebraska are set to implement ahead of the 2012 Presidential election. In Nebraska, the state Republican Party is threatening to disown any state senator “who fails to support legislation returning Nebraska to a winner-take-all presidential electoral vote system.” In Pennsylvania, the State GOP wants to do the exact opposite by breaking up the “winner-take-all” system so that Obama will not get all 20 Pennsylvania Electoral College votes if he wins the state.

It’s easy to see that the libertarian-fueled “Tea Party” sweep of local, state, and federal governments during the 2010 mid-term elections has produced large, centralized, and imposing Republican machinery that’s intent on changing the election structure for 2012 so that it disfavors Democratic voters and candidates. Somehow, I don’t think that this strong-armed and calculated march for one party rule is going to save us from Big Government.

 

Note: This post was edited at 1:22pm.

Comments

  1. oldgulph says:
    September 20, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    A survey of 800 Pennsylvan­ia voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republican­s, and 76% among independen­ts.
    By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.

    National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

    With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.

    Come the end of voting on Election Day, most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislativ­e chambers, in 21 small, medium-sma­ll, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdicti­ons possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    NationalPo­pularVote

  2. oldgulph says:
    September 20, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    A survey of 977 Nebraska voters conducted on January 26–27, 2011, showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

    In a second question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,

    16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide);
    27% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding electoral votes by congressional district; and
    57% favored a national popular vote.
    In a third question, 39% of voters think that changing the method by which Nebraska awards its electoral votes should be a high priority for the Nebraska Legislature in 2011, while 61% said that it should not.

    The first question was: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”

    On the first question, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation was 78% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 65% in the First congressional district, 66% in the Second district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 72% in the Third District. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 76% among women and 59% among men. By age, support for a national popular vote, 73% among 18–29 year-olds, 67% among 30–45 year-olds, 65% among 46–65 year-olds, and 69% among those older than 65. By race, support for a national popular vote was 68% among whites and 63% among others.

    The second question was: “Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like in Nebraska where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of Nebraska’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?”

    NationalPo­pularVote