ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 07, 2016

Thinking long term

The Men of the West have a structural plan that will thwart the Left's strategy of using demographics to dominate US politics in the future:
We are told that demographic realities facing America mean the Right will soon find it impossible to compete with the left on the national stage.  We are told it is decided.   We are told it is inevitable.

Today I want to explain how, with just a few easy changes, we can ensure that the Left loses every presidential election for the next 50 years.

How could that be possible?  Its easier than you think.  For the answer… look to Maine.

What if Florida appointed its electoral votes by district the way Maine does rather than winner take all?   What if Illinois and California did?   The panhandle of Florida is as red as Alabama.  Rather than having its voice silenced in a winner take all election, their voices would be heard.  The same goes for the many red counties and districts of California.   Why should their voices be silenced by the shouting from the cities?

Let every voice truly count.

Why should the red districts of central Pennsylvania be relegated to none existence just because the state has two large blue cities?

Push measures through that apply electoral votes by congressional district rather than for the entire state.. and you will change politics in America for ever.  And states like Florida that are so equally split will be very easy to sell on this plan.  Because every election half of their population is being silenced.
This is, in a word, brilliant. The genius of the concept is that it can be pursued in a decentralized manner at the state level, it has the moral level of 4GW on its side as it more perfectly represents the democratic will of the people, and there is no effective rational or moral argument against it.

This is an idea that the God-Emperor and the Republican Party should strongly pursue after the election, when the Left is on its heels and reeling.

Labels:

189 Comments:

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr November 07, 2016 11:04 AM  

I like the idea, but the big headache is gerrymandering. Maryland is infamous for it...if you look at the actual vote breakdown, our eight members of the House should be 4 Dems, 3 Republicans, and 1 seat that flips back and forth. What we have is 7:1 Dem, due entirely to heavily gerrymandered districts.

Nevertheless, it would be a help.

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist November 07, 2016 11:05 AM  

Yes. Yes. Yes. Fucking brilliant. AND it can easily be sold as the best way to ensure "all voices are heard" in our national elections.

I will begin writing my state representatives about this plan.

Wonder if it is better to first email after Trump is sworn in and all the election stuff is done with or strike while the iron is hot?

Anonymous Credo_In_Unum_Deum November 07, 2016 11:06 AM  

I would totally support such a measure. Not just for my current prison of California, but for Colorado, Minnesota, and other states that have the rural red areas shouted down by the degenerate city-folk.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 11:06 AM  

Very intriguing. First thoughts on implementation is: Do we really require God-Emperor and the Republican Party to pursue it, or is there something we, the little man, can do as well?

The motivated part of me says yes, but the cynical side says "it won't get far without the fat cats".

Blogger Keyser Soze November 07, 2016 11:08 AM  

It is a good idea. That and having Senators chosen by the State Legislatures would further drain the swamp or at least return it to the State level.

Blogger Dan Osborne November 07, 2016 11:09 AM  

Upstate NY would be free as well. This needs to be fleshed out and developed. This and Voter ID will ensure the revival of our republic.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother November 07, 2016 11:11 AM  

This, gents, is 4GW politics. You don't need the command from God-Emperor Trump. JUST like his people across the country didn't need the campaign to tell them what to do.

The DNC ground game is formidable, right? Just like the Persians, just like an ant hill.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 11:12 AM  

That and having Senators chosen by the State Legislatures would further drain the swamp or at least return it to the State level.

You'd have to walk me through this one, as I can't see why this change would be to anyone's benefit.

Anonymous Texas Royalist November 07, 2016 11:12 AM  

Something else that is also worth considering is increasing the number of political parties. If the Latinos had a separate party than the black or white liberal voters, their impact on the Presidency would be different and less terrible.

Blogger El Borak November 07, 2016 11:13 AM  

VD: "This is an idea that the God-Emperor and the Republican Party should strongly pursue after the election"

They should pursue it in blue states first or not at all. In the short run, this approach is harmful to the party that is now getting all the votes. So this helps the GOP in California today, but it would hurt them in Texas today. So the GOP concentrating on breaking up California's 50-some votes before getting around to breaking up Missouri and Alabama makes sense for them. For the Dems, breaking up Texas and South Carolina first would be a priority.

Luckily, the 'fairness' argument is liable to ring most loudly in the blue states anyway, making them an easier sell for the GOP.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky November 07, 2016 11:14 AM  

Every American state is held hostage to its largest cities, which are uniformly huge Democrat urban political machines. New York State was famously the first. Upstate New Yorkers have been calling for New York City to break away from the state my whole life. That city renders the votes of the entirety of the rest of the state null and void.

Same for Massachusetts, which is swamped by Boston. Worse yet, southeastern New Hampshire has become a bedroom community for Boston, so it has taken over two states.

Philly screws PA. NoVA screws VA. Baltimore screws MD. Miami screws FL. LA and San Francisco screw CA. Chicago screws IL. It's the same pattern everywhere.

Blogger Sagramore November 07, 2016 11:14 AM  

@8 From my understanding it would geld the fundraising that has captured senate races.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 07, 2016 11:15 AM  

California as well. Here in Illinois the Ds have gerrymandered a huge advantage for Ds and it is a well earned one I admit but the state is largely conservative but poor. Democrats can be found in large numbers in the South of the state that are hard core 2A supporters. The south suburbs of Chicago and Will county in general lean conservative on issues but vote D often to preserve their economic advantages as the signs say "Its Union country."

Blogger GK Chesterton November 07, 2016 11:16 AM  

Texas Royalist's answer is superior to the OP which would lead to insane levels of gerrymandering. I'm still surprised that something like individual minority parties hasn't happened given the Prop 8 battle in California. Most minorities block vote and their block voting would be more effective for whatever slate they are interested in if they left the democrats and formed their own party. I imagine that only cultural inertia has prevented this.

Blogger Salt November 07, 2016 11:16 AM  

I wonder if a Title 42 suit might be in order, brought by a voter (also in the name of the people) in a state with winner takes all. Being represented via the ballot box has been deemed a Right and WTA nullifies that for a segment of the electorate. Have to think on this.

Anonymous Greg Smithson November 07, 2016 11:17 AM  

Well, Google is harassing me to register to vote. At least 3 times now. And I've already voted. Pretty effective I'd say, since most people go to Google.

Latino voting surge rattles Trump campaign
'A certain group' appears to be turning out in big numbers in several key states.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/latino-vote-surge-donald-trump-campaign-230804


The truth is that the GOP was primed for a white nationalist takeover. Any group that’s been dominant (white men) well, it’s not that easy for them not to be dominant anymore.

No one has a good solution for the refugee crisis or for Islamist terrorism. Longer term, immigrant populations in Europe will continue to have children, and it’s quite a while before white voters in the US can simply be outvoted. The issue of how to integrate ethnic and religious minorities will never entirely disappear, which means xenophobic politicians may continue to find fertile ground among whites concerned about ongoing cultural change.

Western governments can’t simply ignore the far right. Brexit proved its ability to destabilize major Western institutions and the global economy. Most importantly, these parties threaten the most cherished values in Western society: our all-too-recent embrace of equality and tolerance.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 11:17 AM  

@12. Sagramore

Well, perhaps. State legislature would still be subject to regulatory capture though, but money wouldn't be going directly to the Senators for re-election, and probably thus easier to track bribery.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 07, 2016 11:18 AM  

Nebraska splits its electoral votes as well

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) November 07, 2016 11:18 AM  

This is an excellent plan. The Republican party has a significant structural advantage in both congressional districts and state legislatures. They should press that advantage until post 2020 census redistricting.

Blogger dh November 07, 2016 11:21 AM  

The evolution of this is however straight democracy. Which is exactly what the urban types want to drown out representation of suburban and rural Americans.

I mean, if every voice counts why do rural voters count more than the inner-city Democrats?

Secondly, it's only a band-aid. The House re-alignment in 2020 will once again re-balance the districts, and gerrymandering can only hold off the wolves, not displace them.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) November 07, 2016 11:24 AM  


I mean, if every voice counts why do rural voters count more than the inner-city Democrats?


Because of the 3/5 compromise

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 07, 2016 11:27 AM  

The Voting Rights Acts might be our friends

Blogger David-2 November 07, 2016 11:27 AM  

Look at any map of voting patterns by county and you see how this would work.

It would be more in line with what the founders intended, I believe, by the electoral system - where people voted for electors - men they knew - and trusted them to select the President. This would be more "direct representation" than that but would better reflect the will of the people.

Blogger SemiSpook37 November 07, 2016 11:29 AM  

@8 - The Senate is supposed to be the representative of the Legislatures in Congress, hence why each state is allotted two Senators to be selected by the Legislature of each State. The reason the Regressives bastardized the Constitution and pushed the voting to the people was due to the fact that many Legislatures move as slow as molasses on a whole host of issues, which, in turn, affects policy at the Federal level. Putting the selection of Senators back in the hands of the Legislatures, since there's really no excuse not to be able to select people in this day and age, puts the States back in the overall process.

@11 - You tend to forget, DC affects both MD AND VA, and the municipalities surrounding it. Baltimore isn't as bad when you take DC out, but it puts it on STEROIDS otherwise. And I'd gather that Richmond doesn't exactly help the rest of the Commonwealth.

Anonymous Amir Larijani November 07, 2016 11:30 AM  

I mentioned exactly that in a discussion about the Electoral College. One group wanted to abolish it altogether--they are doofuses--and the other group wanted to keep it as-is, insisting on the Founders' case.

I agree with MOTW: keep it, but--rather than break up the Electors by state--do it by Congressional district.

Blogger El Borak November 07, 2016 11:30 AM  

I should have said, "They [the GOP] should pursue it in blue states first or all at once." For the trap is obviously that the left will go along with 'sharing' the electoral votes now controlled by the right, which are the easiest places for the GOP to push such a change. But they will conveniently drag their feet when it comes to sharing their own controlled votes.

Blogger Marty November 07, 2016 11:31 AM  

I've discussed this idea with friends several times. All or nothing on the electoral college disenfranchises people. Look at California. At least 35-40% of them are conservative, but they get no real voice in national politics because they're overwhelmed. For them why even show up at the polls? There is no need for presidential candidates to do much to get their votes because they are inconsequential, but if every congressional district in the country mattered the candidates would be listening.

My suggestion to prevent gerrymandering is thus: Create an open source software program to randomly draw up the districts in the state. Have it draw up numerous versions say 30 to 40. Allow the political parties to have so many strikes like lawyers have in a jury pool. Number the remaining maps and put some balls in a lottery style hopper and what ever number comes out that is the map that gets used for the next decade. Make it all above board with proper public discussion and scrutiny and this would take out a lot (but perhaps not all) of the corruptive human influence that is inherent in the system.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) November 07, 2016 11:31 AM  

I like the idea, but the big headache is gerrymandering. Maryland is infamous for it...if you look at the actual vote breakdown, our eight members of the House should be 4 Dems, 3 Republicans, and 1 seat that flips back and forth. What we have is 7:1 Dem, due entirely to heavily gerrymandered districts.

Gerrymandering is a function of which party controls the state legislature when the district maps are drawn up every ten years. The Republicans have a significant advantage in state legislatures.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 11:31 AM  

Heck, wouldn't it be better if electoral votes were split up into counties, rather than districts? It's a lot harder to gerrymander a county.

Blogger Elocutioner November 07, 2016 11:32 AM  

"No one has a good solution for the refugee crisis or for Islamist terrorism."

Deport them all is an excellent solution that a majority will agree on with a bit of social prompting. They don't belong here. They have to go back.

Blogger Boko Harambe November 07, 2016 11:33 AM  

@ 9, @ 14, while a good idea, those parties would quickly be brought into the Dem fold, explicitly or implicitly. Same way the Socialists and Greens and Black Panthers* exist as a nod to democracy but most of their supporters vote Dem.

Abolishing the E.C would have a greater chance of being successful but an equalxhance of ever happening.

*I've voted in elections where the Black Panthers were on the ballot for a few local level positions.

Blogger SemiSpook37 November 07, 2016 11:34 AM  

@28 - I live in the O'Malleymander. It's fucking ridiculous.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) November 07, 2016 11:35 AM  

Heck, wouldn't it be better if electoral votes were split up into counties, rather than districts? It's a lot harder to gerrymander a county.

Can't happen because every state has far more counties than electoral votes except for Louisiana.

Anonymous Trimegistus November 07, 2016 11:36 AM  

It is NOT a good idea. It just means the Dems have to import or invent more voters. (And of course the solidest Blue states will never go along with that idea precisely because it would dilute their pre-packaged electoral votes.)

Blogger buzzardist November 07, 2016 11:37 AM  

This would work well, provided it's only implemented in states where Democrats regularly win. Split the electoral votes in states where the GOP has consistently won, and it saps a lot of votes away from the Republican candidate. Losing half of Missouri, half of Louisiana, two-fifths of Texas, and so on could be painful.

This would also up the stakes for redistricting to such a level that Democrats would fight to the death every ten years in every last state to draw lines favorably. Overall, the Democrats' national vote total in recent elections has been larger than the Republicans' total. If redistricting goes badly for the GOP next time around, then the presidency is likely lost for at least two elections.

The GOP currently has a strangle hold on enough state legislatures that this strategy could work in the short term. But don't anybody pretend that the fight would end as soon as electoral votes were divided among legislative districts. That would be the opening move. The rest of the match would involve ground games to win state legislatures, control redistricting, and then win challenges to redistricting in the courts.

What Democrats have wanted with legislative districts for a long time is a bunch of wheel-spoke districts in every state. Big cities vote blue by massive margins (70-30 or 80-20 in most cases.) Suburbs vote fairly even or slightly Republican. Rural areas vote heavily Republican, but their population is dwarfed by cities. Republicans come out ahead when districts are drawn on geographical lines. Democrats come out ahead when districts are made to be demographically diverse. A district starting in an inner city and snaking outward through suburbs and into rural areas is ideal for Democrats.

The better route is still to deport illegal immigrants and gut the liberal media complex. Put some even-handed media coverage out there, while pushing back hard in immigration, and America's voting patterns will look like Texas currently does. Democrats, after all, already have a plan in motion to destroy the solid conservative vote in rural states. Immigration is a big part of that plan--flood the areas with Mexican farm workers, and then aggressively resettle asylum seekers in those places. Combined with a foreign policy that ensures that there will always be millions of asylum seekers, this plan is already reshaping rural America.

The situation is grim. A vote tomorrow is still the first step in clawing back some ground.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 07, 2016 11:38 AM  

Gerrymandering can occur at any level of boxing. Fighting it at the state level is probably the most profitable in terms of how much people care vs. impact.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:38 AM  

"I mean, if every voice counts why do rural voters count more than the inner-city Democrats?"

They are already drowning out voices. Illinois politics aren't illinois politics. They are chicago politics.

its simple... you make this move... then when the gerrymandering starts... You go after them for cronyism and more. You never get to direct democracy because it would take 50 constitutional amendments in 50 states.

Blogger El Borak November 07, 2016 11:39 AM  

Can't happen because every state has far more counties than electoral votes except for Louisiana.

Also because the Supremes' one-man/one-vote rulings insist that all districts be as equal in population as possible. County lines are simply swept aside unless you can divvy up the districts using whole, contiguous counties to within about a 1% population differential.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:39 AM  

"Losing half of Missouri, half of Louisiana, two-fifths of Texas, and so on could be painful."

Did ya read the whole piece?

If it was applied nationwide today... it would be 244 red to 188 blue.

We call that an asswhippin'

Blogger The Deuce November 07, 2016 11:39 AM  

This is brilliant. Another aspect of it that I love: The Democrats would no longer be able to focus their "ground game" (aka voter fraud efforts) at key counties in order to swing entire states. That would only net them one or two electoral votes. They'd have to spread out everywhere, which would make it cost ineffective, and starve them of funding in other areas if they wanted to pursue it.

Anonymous kfg November 07, 2016 11:41 AM  

" . . . our all-too-recent embrace of equality and tolerance."

Is what is known as a "fad." Now becoming a hysteria. This too shall pass. The question is how many millions will have to die violently and needlessly before it does.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 07, 2016 11:44 AM  

Conservatives in blue states would be feistier with their franchise instead of it's no use demoralized as they are now.

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 11:44 AM  

State legislatures are free to determine how their electors are appointed. Michigan, PA, FL could easily implement the Maine/NE system.

In theory the state legislatures could take away the popular vote altogether for electors and simply elect them on their own. Or appoint a committe to choose them. Or have a Ninja-Warrior obstacle course contest. Its their constitutional right.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:45 AM  

"It is NOT a good idea. It just means the Dems have to import or invent more voters. "

We can't do anything to win because if we do something bad will happen!!!

Blogger Tom K. November 07, 2016 11:48 AM  

The fact of the matter is political differences are as easy to understand as Big vs. Small. City vs. Country. The more complex compact,and specialized your society the more you need a central clearing house to mediate relationships. It doesnt have to become dictatorial or even socialist, but that seems to be the natural tendency centralized power follows.

This plan to reapportion electoral votes might be the only chance we have of stopping the Second American Civil War.

Or peaceful secession. It's up to the Elites.

Anonymous WS November 07, 2016 11:48 AM  

Wonder if anyone has done the math - do the gains outweigh the losses? Keep in mind you'll lose parts of existing red states too. Don't know if rural NY/CA/PA will gain enough to offset the cities that you'd lose everywhere. Unless the suggestion is that only "swing" states get their electoral votes proportionally allocated...

Anonymous Newcomer November 07, 2016 11:48 AM  

"They are already drowning out voices. Illinois politics aren't illinois politics. They are chicago politics."

Yes. Most of the state (by landmass) would like to get rid of Chicago. It can join Wisconsin or be its own state; we don't care.

Anonymous Texas Royalist November 07, 2016 11:48 AM  

@ 31, the Democratic party depends heavily on turnout machines which are organized by local parties. If you eliminate the local party organization, the Dems become irrelevant for statewide races. Also, while I cannot speak for elsewhere, in Texas, the turnout machines are funded by donors who are interested in local races (judges, commissioner's courts, etc.). That funding disappears if the local races are going to a race based party.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:49 AM  

"Wonder if it is better to first email after Trump is sworn in and all the election stuff is done with or strike while the iron is hot"

Gamergate tactics would suggest... when in doubt... email.

Blogger allyn71 November 07, 2016 11:51 AM  

Conventional political parties are centralizing agents. Centralized organizations are easier to control and manipulate. This proposal would decentralize voting making it harder to corrupt and control people.

This is the central feature of the information age and the crux of the matter in the world today.

Centralization vs Decentralized. The old central paradigms are dying but aren't going down without a fight. If you can't see how this fits into that

... what are you scared of, winning? freedom?

Blogger Zundfolge November 07, 2016 11:51 AM  

I've long been one of those that opposed monkeying with the system that the Founding Fathers set up because they were wise men and set these things in place to prevent us becoming a direct democracy instead of a republic.

But its clear that the left has learned to game the existing system so maybe proportional allocation of Electoral votes is a bad idea who's time has come.

I listened to lefties complain about the Electoral College since 2000, so maybe it wouldn't be hard to convince them that this is a good idea.

Blogger pyrrhus November 07, 2016 11:51 AM  

This very good idea has been around for a while. As usual, the Establishment hates it....but it should still be pursued in blue states, and even in TX.

Blogger heyjames4 November 07, 2016 11:53 AM  

There's also increasing size of House of Representatives. More Reps means fewer voters/population per Rep. Potential for fracturing Parties, reducing fundraising, increasing responsiveness of individual Reps.

Anonymous EH November 07, 2016 11:53 AM  

Good idea, quite doable, needs only statehouse majorities. It will also open presidential elections up to third parties somewhat.
Yet it is still wrong to allow supporters of enemies of the United States, those who openly plan to allow foreigners to invade and displace the American people, to escape the consequences of their treason. Those who donated money or volunteered for Hillary Clinton after the revelations of her crimes are guilty of treason and must not be allowed to vote ever again.

Another clear requirement is to overturn the 14th amendment, which many legal scholars agree was never properly ratified. This will not only restore freedom of association and states' rights, it will end our ongoing replacement. Only those who can show they have a parent who was a citizen by birth or naturalization, and not by mere birthplace should be allowed to vote. The naturalizations of those eligible for citizenship in other countries should also be reviewed. No more anchor babies. No more dual-citizenship, except possibly for European ancestry countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Christian Europe - specifically not Middle East).

The franchise needs to become selective once again. The opinions of enemies and idiots have been solicited for far too long, diluting the votes of the posterity of the Founding Fathers and reducing us to slaves of parasites.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:53 AM  

"Wonder if anyone has done the math - do the gains outweigh the losses? "

God dammit. YES. we've done the math. In congressional districts right now today... if you applied it universally to the whole country... you would have 244 red districts and 188 blue districts.

Its an ass kicking.

Blogger Shimshon November 07, 2016 11:54 AM  

This shouldn't be too difficult to pursue in states that support propositions and initiatives, like California and other western states.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 07, 2016 11:55 AM  

Wonder if anyone has done the math - do the gains outweigh the losses?

Someone did, after the last election when we got that vote-by-county map that makes it clear the blue areas are tiny islands in a sea of red, even in "blue" states. I don't remember who it was, but it's surely out there. As I recall, the gains for the right would be huge -- so huge that the urban elites would never consider it, of course. There's about as much chance of getting this through the current establishment as term limits or "End the Fed," but these are times for doing the impossible....

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 11:56 AM  

@Josh
Can't happen because every state has far more counties than electoral votes except for Louisiana.

Good point. Now I got egg on my face.

@Nate
Gamergate tactics would suggest... when in doubt... email.

The key question is... email who? The emailing in Gamergate didn't really take traction until we started hitting the advertisers, and our faithful autists had to dig up that info. Blindly emailing won't work, so who do we spend our time on?

State representatives?

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:59 AM  

Remember people... we don't need the establishment to like it or support it.

We can go around them. Just like Gamergate did. State legislatures are far less cucked than congress.

Email you state legislature. Focus on the fact that your voice isn't being heard.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:59 AM  

"The key question is... email who? "

Your state legislature. Your local state senator and representative. the governor. everyone.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 12:00 PM  

Email you state legislature. Focus on the fact that your voice isn't being heard.

I'm going to presume emailing both incumbent and challenger, correct?

Anonymous Daniel H November 07, 2016 12:01 PM  

I have thought of this for a long time. In California we can accomplish this by referendum, bypassing the corrupt political establishment. The key state is California. If California adopts this method all the other states would be compelled to adopt it because it would put Democrats at a severe disadvantage otherwise. In tomorrow's election, if just California apportioned their vote this way I think that Trump would waltz right into the White House.

Another simple alternative is to apportion the votes by percentage of popular vote, with the plurality winner getting the odd elector if a perfect division cannot be made. Republicans should have been thinking of this 20 years ago, but the knuckleheads who control the stupid party foolishly thought that the current electoral college setup favored them. They were and are wrong.

It will be nigh impossible for Democrats to oppose these schemes because the fairness of it is so evident. Democrats would be in the position of opposing democracy for petty partisan power. I hope someone like Ron Unz gets the ball rolling on this, I will donate today to such an effort. We have got to start spreading the word of this on the alt-Right. The Republicans are too stupid and timid to initiate this on their own.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 07, 2016 12:01 PM  

Heck, wouldn't it be better if electoral votes were split up into counties, rather than districts?

Using districts makes it easy to explain and easy to do, because the electors are already based on the number of representatives and senators. It also helps counter the "but some votes would be worth more than others" objection, because that's already built-in, with small states having the same number of senators as large ones. It's easy to sell to the people as applying the same system of representation the founders created for the legislature to the presidential electoral process. It's not really anything new that way.

Blogger Shimshon November 07, 2016 12:02 PM  

I remember the Prop 13 battle. I was 11 at the time, and have quite clear memories of teachers trying to scare us out of or wits of how this was going to destroy the school or the whole district (to goad our parents in voting for the highly watered-down "reasonable" alternative Prop 16). This was the Beverly Hills school district (one high school, four elementary schools).

This would be a long shot, but it should have no trouble getting on the ballot with wide grass roots support. I think a number of formerly red or battleground states have popular initiatives.

Anonymous NateM November 07, 2016 12:05 PM  

More importantly, the most deluded ultra libs will buy it. I told my far left sister I believed in basically de emphasizing congress in favor of more direct democracy and she was surprised, saying it was a "very liberal" concept. They are actually deluded enough to believe that the majority of people share their beliefs, because they have ignored the majority of the rest of america for so long.

Blogger Shimshon November 07, 2016 12:05 PM  

I think it was Prop 8, but you get the idea. Prop 13 had YUGE opposition. A lot of entrenched interests. But it passed in a landslide.

Anonymous Daniel H November 07, 2016 12:07 PM  

@57, @59,

We don't need the damned state legislatures. Remember: Republicans are useless, timid cucks. We can do it by referendum, and we only need to take ONE referendum, that in California. If we get California every other state will be compelled to follow, or they will become irrelevant. Truth is, if we get California and the other states don't follow, that will be even better, we have so many in our alt-Right pocket already. C'mon people: California here we come.

OpenID aew51183 November 07, 2016 12:09 PM  

question:
Is this strictly legislature control? If it's not we're going to have a problem because many of the target states have democratic governors who would simply veto the bills.

Then there's california, which has had a democrat supermajority in the legislature for decades.

Blogger Shimshon November 07, 2016 12:10 PM  

As others are pointing out, as goes California...Prop 13 also had national ramifications after passing. I still remember getting a tax rebate check in the 1980s. REBATE, not refund. Sniff.

Blogger Basil Makedon November 07, 2016 12:10 PM  

The Democrats boxed themselves into a corner because they had two goals that contradicted themselves: (1) creating majority minority districts; (2) controlling Congress. Republicans (when they had some balls) encouraged this process, seeing the benefit to themselves, and even filed racial discrimination suits when the Democrats tried to reverse course by watering down minority districts with suburb populations.

This had the effect of pooling large numbers of african americans and later hispanics into a small number of Congressional districts. It worked pretty well until the 1994 realignment on the Congressional level.

This is a great idea and was raised I recall the first time in 2010 or so. People should absolutely make it a priority and fast.

The Democrats have realized the mistake they made, however, and are seeking to undo it. The Obama administration is already trying to distribute their imported vibrancy more widely through the "Affirmatively Furthering 'Fair' Housing." NRO's Stanley Kurtz had been on top of this.

Blogger lowercaseb November 07, 2016 12:12 PM  

Shimshon wrote:
This would be a long shot, but it should have no trouble getting on the ballot with wide grass roots support. I think a number of formerly red or battleground states have popular initiatives.


Bingo! I remember that fight as well. I was 11 as well but up in NoCal, but I still remember the hard sell by all the teachers. EXACT same talking points.

We be facing the same thing 2016, but using the referendum could definitely get it on the ballot.

Blogger James Dixon November 07, 2016 12:13 PM  

> Also because the Supremes' one-man/one-vote rulings insist that all districts be as equal in population as possible.

Yes. If this passed the Supreme Court would merely rule that the larger population centers had to have more districts. It's not a real solution.

Of course, if we had a truly limited federal government without the ability to tax and spend without limit, none of this would matter at the federal level. It would still be a problem at the state level though.

Anonymous fop November 07, 2016 12:15 PM  

Soros is way ahead of you. He's already pouring millions into state legislature races.

Blogger Shimshon November 07, 2016 12:15 PM  

I remember reading about this idea even in 2000. But we (fellow white people - joke, okay?) are far more aware of each other today. This could probably be done with good local organizing (did I just suggest Community Organizing?!) and probably turning the whole process upside down in a Trumpian transformation to due it for close to nothing by bypassing the Old Media. Red California has a strong independent streak and latch on to this enthusiastically.

Blogger buzzardist November 07, 2016 12:16 PM  

@39 Yes, Nate, I read the piece. It would be an ass-whooping...last election. But it depends which states adopt this change. If Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, and Louisiana, let's say, were the only five states to adopt this before 2020, how does the math add up then?

If every state went along, yes, it would be an ass-whooping for the near future, at least through 2020. But we can bet on a hell of a fight over state legislatures in 2020, as well as over redistricting that year.

But, let's be politically realistic--Democrats can do math, too, when it suits them. Democrats will realize that a nationwide shift to electoral votes divided among legislative districts would disadvantage them. States like New York, Illinois, and California will never go along with this change. I'd love it if they did, but Democrats own those state legislatures. If you can convince states with Democratic legislatures to go along, great. But Democrats will quash this effort among their state legislators with orders from the national level as soon as they see bills introduced. E-mailing may convince GOP-held legislatures, but those aren't the states we'd need.

At the very least, let's put a trigger clause into these bills so that no conservative states split their electoral votes until enough liberal states have voted to do the same. Texas' bill doesn't go into effect until California or New York does the same.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 12:16 PM  

"I'm going to presume emailing both incumbent and challenger, correct?"

Everyone.

the quest for electoral fairness knows no limits.

Blogger tz November 07, 2016 12:18 PM  

Maybe repeal the 17th amendment.
In either case, you can split states by agreement of the congress and state legislature. WA and OR can split - the east is deep red, the west just blue enough. "Jefferson" is Northern CA trying to secede. Northern CO has talked to. Although red on both sides, splitting the Dakotas east-west too might happen. How many more sanators and electoral votes? Florida also has a red/blue geographic split. Michigan has the Upper Pennisula. There may be others.
5 new red states split off from blue: 110+ senators, the additional 10 all deep red. 10 more electoral votes, also red.

Anonymous EH November 07, 2016 12:19 PM  

"Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" was an Obama executive order. What was be done by Captain EO will be undone by Emperor's Order.

Blogger Nobody of Consequence November 07, 2016 12:21 PM  

Allocating electoral votes is unconstitutional. The Constitution allows the legislature of each state to decide the manner in which ELECTORS are chosen. The Electors then make THEIR OWN CHOICES, not the people's choice or the party choice, THEIR CHOICE for President. The states do not have constitutional authority to do what they do now, requiring the Electors to follow the popular vote. So go ahead violate the Constitution. Nobody out there gives a fuck about the rule of law and the Constitution. The Framers KNEW the people were idiots and could never choose a good President so they attempted to keep the people out of it. The parties corrupted the system, fooled the idiots, and fucked the country.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) November 07, 2016 12:22 PM  

Soros is way ahead of you. He's already pouring millions into state legislature races.

So are the Kochs

Blogger James Dixon November 07, 2016 12:25 PM  

But regardless of what I just posted above (i.e., future actions by the courts), trying this in California would be a good test case. We have nothing to lose at this point.

Blogger Noah B November 07, 2016 12:25 PM  

Conveniently forgetting that there was a Democratic majority in the House as recently as 2010.

Blogger Shimshon November 07, 2016 12:25 PM  

All these ideas about addressing the Constitution (or its amendments) itself are distractions. Those are long term goals. They are not achievable in the short term. Focusing on this one doable goal is a good idea.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 07, 2016 12:25 PM  

We can't openly push it as only for blue states -- stick to Nate's "fairness for all" take -- but since it's a local grass-roots effort, each person can concentrate his efforts where he prefers (mine will be in Illinois).

Let the Democrats be the ones to push the idea in a state like Texas, and by doing so they'll hand the whole thing legitimacy.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) November 07, 2016 12:26 PM  

Ballot initiatives in blue states in 2018

Anonymous JustAnotherPairOfEyes November 07, 2016 12:27 PM  

The LA Times tracking poll has Clinton leading Trump among "Latinos" by only 46.7 to 43.6%. Her support has dived 10% (from about 57% to about 47%) over the last 3 days.

I'm guessing that is Spirit Cooking related. But the thing to note is that the LA Times poll is a running average over the past 7 days. This smoothes their results and makes sharp changes look like they take 7 days to be fully seen. Losing 10% in 3 days mathematically means that she's actually lost about 20%. Therfore, in the actual polling now, she's getting slaughtered even in the Latinos.

So I don't think it's necessary to do anything special to keep populism alive in this country. If you sufficiently reduce new immigration, the old immigrants will gradually divide out and a good share of them will be driven out of the Democratic party by the stench of evil that hangs over them. As the FBI/NYPD investigations continue after the election this will only continue.

Of all the things that have happened this election, the only thing that drove me to talk to strangers about it was the Spirit Cooking. From my point of view, informing people that high level Democrats consider this stuff and the child semi-porn "art" is all you need to do to get the votes.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 12:28 PM  

@Daniel H.
We don't need the damned state legislatures. Remember: Republicans are useless, timid cucks. We can do it by referendum, and we only need to take ONE referendum, that in California.

There's no harm in still emailing your local government making a fuss about it.

Blogger Noah B November 07, 2016 12:28 PM  

@81 California is Dem controlled. They aren't going to vote in something that hurts Dems nationally. Same goes for Illinois. Is Lector just now discovering that Democrats are shameless hypocrites? If so -- welcome to the party, pal.

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda November 07, 2016 12:28 PM  

"Why should the red districts of central Pennsylvania be relegated to none existence just because the state has two large blue cities"?

If anybody doesn't understand the power of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, one need only consider the "transportation bill" pushed by the previous Governor (Corbett) and passed by a Republican legislature-purported to be a bill to remedy Pennsylvania's notoriously crappy roads and bridges, it used increased gas taxes to do things like buying new passenger rail equipment for SEPTA (Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority).

Yes poor bastards in places like Coudersport get to pay increased gas taxes so Philadelphia commuters are not inconvenienced by ticket prices that reflect the actual cost of running trains and buses in Philly. The state also heavily subsidizes the Philadelphia to Harrisburg part of Amtrak.






Blogger Open Carry November 07, 2016 12:28 PM  

And then there is the ongoing "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" project:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (Wikipedia)

www.nationalpopularvote.com

One can only hope no red or swing states sign on to it, but, annoyingly, in a few of them it managed to pass in one of the legislative chambers.

OpenID basementhomebrewer November 07, 2016 12:30 PM  

I had this same idea a couple weeks ago when it was becoming obvious that large swathes of the country including in blue states would go heavily for Trump but the hag was still going to get an appreciable amount of electoral votes due to the large cities. This would also make 3rd parties much more viable options.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 12:32 PM  

So I don't think it's necessary to do anything special to keep populism alive in this country.

There's a difference between "winning" and "winning handily". And not every potential presidential contender we have is nearly as resilient as Trump is.

Blogger Nobody of Consequence November 07, 2016 12:38 PM  

A second point: The 17th amendment was never properly ratified. Normally amendments need 3/4 of the states BUT the 17th needed unanimous support because of the last clause of Article V wherein NO state may be deprived of its suffrage in the Senate without its permission. States that did not ratify the 17th were denied suffrage without their permission, violating Article V. Thus the 17th has never been a legitimate part of the Constitution and the choosing of Senators by the people has been a lie and violation of the law.

OpenID aew51183 November 07, 2016 12:38 PM  

@88 california has chronically low turnout though because it's a safe blue state and not a battleground.

If the courts consider it "constitutional" to do so, it only takes about half a million sigs to get the measure on the ballot. Put something sappy like "fairness for all" on it with some wordsmithing to tug at shitlib heartstrings and the low-iq mexi-populace will vote it in just like all the other horrifically dysfunctional policies there, like prop 13 and that one that released millions of hardened criminals last cycle.

Anonymous JustAnotherPairOfEyes November 07, 2016 12:38 PM  

<>

If the Republicans start putting GOPe candidates up for election they'll probably continue to be crushed by the Democrats. But I'm assuming this isn't what's going on here.

If we see the Republican party as becoming the "populism" party and the Democrats becoming the part of the "global elite", we will see Republican victories for decades.

Then what happens to the Populist wing of the Democrats? My guess is that 4 years of Trump will convince a good portion of them that Trump actually isn't Satan Personified and those will convert to Republican. That leaves fewer populists in the Democrat party and they will therefore become the party of socialism / globalism. They'll lose elections for decades on that platform.

Blogger lowercaseb November 07, 2016 12:40 PM  

Noah B wrote:@81 California is Dem controlled. They aren't going to vote in something that hurts Dems nationally.

Oh they can definitly get it passed if it can be done by referendum. See prop 8...

Thee trouble is that the Blue courts will immediately do what they can to neuter and/or overturn the law. Not that it can't be fought, but it will not be easy.

However, this state is starting to wake up and hear the song of Angry Men. I think it was the GOPe and the cucks that were doing a better job of suppressing the red vote here...but now that they have been unmasked and the alt right/alt west is fighting back and winning the left is scared and the right is emboldened.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 12:41 PM  

"There's no harm in still emailing your local government making a fuss about it."

exactly.

make them fight in on may fronts. Because even winning 1 blue or battle ground state tilts it all in our favor

Anonymous kfg November 07, 2016 12:42 PM  

"The state also heavily subsidizes the Philadelphia to Harrisburg part of Amtrak."

It has been famously noted that AMTRAK subsidies are so extensive that it would be cheaper for the government to hand out free plane tickets.

Anonymous GodsHand November 07, 2016 12:42 PM  

The problem with this plan is that it uncovers the hypocrisy inherent in many. They want votes to count? Fine. Go to a popular vote and get rid of the electoral college altogether. Oh wait. That would be way to democratic.

Men of the west are hypocritical and cheaters at heart. They can't be trusted because they possess no honest bones.

Anonymous EH November 07, 2016 12:43 PM  

@83 "All these ideas about addressing the Constitution (or its amendments) itself are distractions. Those are long term goals. They are not achievable in the short term. "

In the case of the 14th amendment, it can be invalidated with just control of the Executive and a majority of Congress. Recognizing that the it was reported in error as being ratified makes it void ab initio and also invalidates as precedent all cases that relied on the 14th.

Congress actually has the proper authority to decide general matters of Constitutional interpretation. Courts only have the authority to decide individual cases. The abuse of stare decisis to give the Judicial branch general policy-making authority is one of the two key failings of our implementation of the Constitution, the other being the illegitimate delegation of legislative and judicial functions to executive branch bureaucracies.

OpenID basementhomebrewer November 07, 2016 12:49 PM  

GodsHand wrote:The problem with this plan is that it uncovers the hypocrisy inherent in many. They want votes to count? Fine. Go to a popular vote and get rid of the electoral college altogether. Oh wait. That would be way to democratic.

Men of the west are hypocritical and cheaters at heart. They can't be trusted because they possess no honest bones.


Popular vote is the opposite of this. Popular vote erases large swathes of the country. Instead of having to campaign all across the country the candidates would spend all of their time in the 5-10 largest cities in the country and ignore everyone else. If you don't understand that you are too short for this ride.

Blogger lowercaseb November 07, 2016 12:51 PM  

Slightly OT: Do the Men of the West have a Gab account? I want to start linking to it as this idea is brilliant.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 07, 2016 12:51 PM  

uSA Senators are now elected by popular vote, throw away another vestige of the alleged living Constitution. Why should the States select the electors acvording to who won the State?
In the end it will delay nothing and prevent nothing.
It will bring clarity, though.

Anonymous Dave November 07, 2016 12:52 PM  

In any electoral contest, a small group can wield outsize influence if it votes as a block, while a majority can lose if it splits its vote.

So there's zero incentive for any individual state to ever split its electoral vote. Presidential candidates don't campaign in Maine or Nebraska; they'd rather focus on states where a small change in the popular vote can swing a lot of electoral votes.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 12:53 PM  

Here's some links to State Legislatures. Hopefully this should help in finding the correct email addresses.

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 12:53 PM  

@96 I'm inclined to think that a referendum might not be able to do it.

Article II, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution says in part: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." The term Legislature in the Const. has a very specific meaning, and it also uses specific language when referring to the people of a state. So by the text only the Legislature can determine how the Electors are to be determined.

Now there are probably some good arguments that could be made for why a referendum could work, but it would depend heavily on the manner in which referendums are established in each individual state. Essentially you'd have to argue that a referendum is an act of the Legislature granted by the Legislature to the people. If its considered an act by the people that can supersede legislative power, then it would probably not be sufficient, as nothing short of a Const. amendment could take away the Legislatures power under Art. II.

Blogger William Meisheid November 07, 2016 12:54 PM  

@99 You see to forget we are not a democracy and our founders did not want one because they considered that mob rule. We are a Republic and the idea was to insulate the legislature to a degree from the population (why Senators are six years - insulates them - and Representatives are two - makes them more accountable since they have purse strings). They enshrined the same principal in the electoral college for the same reason. The electors by district re-establishes the Republic ideal and giving everyone a voice, especially the minority.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 12:55 PM  

"The problem with this plan is that it uncovers the hypocrisy inherent in many. They want votes to count? Fine. Go to a popular vote and get rid of the electoral college altogether. Oh wait. That would be way to democratic. "

Silence whore.

There is nothing dishonest about this. We have a system. This is a small change within that system. There is nothing dishonest about it.

Blogger The Deuce November 07, 2016 12:55 PM  

It should go without saying that we wouldn't pursue this in every state, just in strategic ones, like California (allows for ballot initiatives like this) or Florida (where it would be likely to pass). We're here to win and crush the left, not play "fair"

Anonymous Daniel H November 07, 2016 12:57 PM  

@68
>>Then there's california, which has had a democrat supermajority in the legislature for decades.

REFERENDUM !!!!!!

It can be done. Don't need no concern trolls.

Remember, the Republicans are useless. I remember back in the late 80s early 90s the Republicans had the governor's seat and controlled both houses in New Jersey (now a permanent blue state due to immigration). The knuckleheads could have passed such a measure but they were too stupid/cucked/clueless to do so.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 12:58 PM  

It should go without saying that we wouldn't pursue this in every state, just in strategic ones, like California (allows for ballot initiatives like this) or Florida (where it would be likely to pass).

Or at the very least, those first. NEVER right states first, because democrats will just drag their heels than play fair.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 1:01 PM  

"We're here to win and crush the left, not play "fair""

Exactly. That's Hard Right. Give that man a ceegar

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 1:02 PM  

Its about ethics in electoral college vote allocation

Blogger overcaffeinated November 07, 2016 1:05 PM  

Another good idea is converting as many public school districts to the voucher system. A recent Supreme Court decision declared them legal, but they are not widespread. I think it's a pretty easy sell, too. Opponents are forced to admit they want the state indoctrinating childrena against their parents.

Blogger Harold November 07, 2016 1:09 PM  

Meanwhile in NY, it was an idiot state senator elected on the Republican/Conservative/Independence lines who introduced the National Popular Vote Initiative bill into the senate. If enough states sign on, it will ensure rural areas never again have a say in government anywhere.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 1:16 PM  

"If enough states sign on, it will ensure rural areas never again have a say in government anywhere."

The stupid is over 9000

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 1:17 PM  

@115 It takes a Constitutional Amendment to remove the electoral college. That means ratification by 38 (2/3) of the states. 21 states have 6 EVs or less....very doubtful they would be on board giving up every last bit of influence they might have in the Presidential elections.

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 1:18 PM  

er 3/4th of the states

Blogger Jack November 07, 2016 1:21 PM  

@106 You are correct, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. In the Arizona Redistricting Commission case, the Supreme Court held that the public could establish a commission to draw district lines via referendum. The counterargument was that the Constitution limited such power to the legislatures; however, the Court held that "legislature" includes the people acting through referendum.

Anonymous Silly But True November 07, 2016 1:26 PM  

This idea is late to the party. The opposition is _already_ on the books with the interstate compact and building a system of awarding State electoral votes based on the national popular vote: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.56.300

At present it doesn't appear the compact is yet in force as only Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey have passed the necessary law.

But that's five states already, and five states more than this idea.

Silly But True

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda November 07, 2016 1:30 PM  

@87

"We don't need the damned state legislatures. Remember: Republicans are useless, timid cucks. We can do it by referendum, and we only need to take ONE referendum, that in California."

And how long will that happen with Democrats firmly in charge of every lever of power in almost every part of California? It's been their ace in the hole since 1992. In the last election, Obama won 60-37, and delivered 55 of the 270 votes necessary. The rent-seeking globalists of Silicon Valley, among others aren't going to allow something to happen that will be a reduction of the lens that magnifies their power.

Every election, the Republicans surrender California (55 votes), New York (29, once in the 40's), Illinois (20 also down), New Jersey (14), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Michigan (16), and others. That's 155 Electoral voters and by the time you add states like Oregon and Rhode Island, they have 200 votes in the bag. It's almost unimaginable that in three decades, Reagan's 49-1 victory has become impossible.

The system is rigged in both hard (fraud) and soft (dependency and rent seeking) ways; hard red Texas is now pinkening; if they capture those 38 votes; welcome to the People's Republic of Amerika, comrade.

I note that the VIX (should be called the global index rather than the "fear" index) plummeted today on that sickening cretin Comey's latest "nothing here to see" announcement. It only fortifies my resolve to vote for Trump tomorrow, even if they tell me I have to crawl over broken glass while snacking on it to cast my one vote against the reserve army of free sh*t seekers.

As an aside I'm getting tired of Anonymous' crying wolf.





Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 1:31 PM  

@119 well then I stand corrected. Just looked over that case and of course it was a 5-4 vote by the 'living document' folks. It would be awfully funny to see that be the basis for using referendums to implement the Maine/NE method of EV distributions and cost the Democrats the Presidency for the next 50 years.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 1:32 PM  

@120. Silly But True
This idea is late to the party.

That's not exactly the same idea.

Blogger Open Carry November 07, 2016 1:33 PM  

It's eleven states already, not just five.

Blogger Noah B November 07, 2016 1:37 PM  

@96 A ballot measure would be the best way forward. But I say we try to get this going in blue states and resist the hell out of it in red states. The left has intentionally altered the demographic composition of this country to give themselves an advantage. Literally anything is fair game at this point.

Blogger Thucydides November 07, 2016 1:47 PM  

Just remember to consider all the tools the Progs have in their arsenal to fight this, from SJW attacks on individuals to "disemploy" them to lawfare to armed violence (why do you think armies of Brownshirts like "Occupy" and "BLM" have been raised?), and consider how they can be countered as well.

As a secondary consideration, look carefully at the map, and think of how easy it would be to isolate these "Blue" counties (even simply refusing to do business there will be a serious hit to their economies, without even thinking about where the "Blue" counties get there food, water and energy from). A "Blue Boycott" on a national scale will destabilize the Liberal/Progressive power base, when there are fewer crumbs to sweep off the table to their lapdogs. The main thing for this strategy to work is the need to keep them bottled up inside their "Blue" counties and cities to prevent them from swarming out and looting the countryside.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 07, 2016 1:48 PM  

As much squawking I've heard from blue wabbits about how unfair and wrong the current mostly winner take all electoral distribution is they might be convinced this is there idea to make everything more democratic.

In principle, when I was deluded about the Constitution actually meaning anything I would have opposed it,siting the historical reasons, states writes etc, but now I'm all "who gives a fk?". If it helps the alt-west win, count me in.

Might have to deal with some game theory re: the first large state that does it looses some of its electoral clout in the eyes of candidates. It's an image, pride, thing about how important their state is in the election. Larger states are more important because they are winner take all.

Didn't read the whole thread, forgive me if my thunder was stolen above somewhere.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 07, 2016 1:54 PM  

"OGRE wrote:@115 It takes a Constitutional Amendment to remove the electoral college...

This doesn't remove the electoral college. States get to decide how to select them, they're not even required to have a popular election. Changing the way they divvy up their ec votes does not require a constitutional amendment.

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 1:54 PM  

I'm sure the idiots in LA and SF could be convinced that its all about giving more voting rights to disenfranchised minorities and women and queers.

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 1:56 PM  

@128 yeah I'd agree on its face its constitutional, albeit abjectly stupid for any of the smaller states or battleground states to join in. I notice that its all the high EV blue states that have joined it. I wouldn't think too much of it until Texas or FL look to jump on board.

Blogger The Deuce November 07, 2016 2:01 PM  

This could pass in California for the same reason Prop 8 did. Conservatives are a lot more likely to vote on referendums than leftists and minorities are, since the Dems can't get their full GOTV/voter fraud machine mobilized for such abstracta.

Blogger dh November 07, 2016 2:01 PM  

This doesn't remove the electoral college. States get to decide how to select them, they're not even required to have a popular election. Changing the way they divvy up their ec votes does not require a constitutional amendment.

Well, yes, the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. That is usually held to mean, a representative democracy. I suppose a state could try to institute a monarchy or something, but it usually comes down to that clause.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 2:02 PM  

Some feedback requested: Different type of email if the legislature is Republican or Democratic? I'm thinking of appealing to "being fair" and stuff like that for Democrat and "Look if we do this, we'll finally get some EVs and our part of the state will be worth something" for Republicans.

Anonymous Anonymous November 07, 2016 2:03 PM  

You know what the plan is? Have children, lots of them, and teach them things like honor, chivalry, purity, love, and humility.
Like have 10 kids, Benedictine option, and emerge to fix things after it has collapsed.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 2:05 PM  

Like have 10 kids, Benedictine option, and emerge to fix things after it has collapsed.

Again, that's the long-term plan. This is something we can push for in the short term.

Anonymous Gr8 Again November 07, 2016 2:09 PM  

It's a great idea. The end result would be a lot of cities voting 80/20 for Democrats and even more more suburban and rural areas voting 60/40 for Republicans.

Unfortunately, it would be very tough to implement. The problem is that the party in power in each state likes the winner-take-all format because it gives their side more electoral votes.

Why would Illinois, run by Democrats, voluntarily reduce their Electoral College allocation from 20 blue votes to roughly 7 blue votes for Chicago and 13 red votes for the rest of the state?

Likewise, why would a state like Texas, which delivers 38 red votes, voluntarily reduce that total to, say, 15 blue votes from Houston, Austin and Dallas, and 25 red votes for the rest of the state?

Blogger pyrrhus November 07, 2016 2:12 PM  

@135--The argument for TX would be that it is going blue if there is continuous immigration, but the rural areas and many suburbs will remain red...

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 2:13 PM  

Why would Illinois, run by Democrats, voluntarily reduce their Electoral College allocation from 20 blue votes to roughly 7 blue votes for Chicago and 13 red votes for the rest of the state?

Well it wouldn't hurt to try. The current Governor is Republican, Comptroller is Republican, and one of two Senators is Republican.

Blogger pyrrhus November 07, 2016 2:14 PM  

"This doesn't remove the electoral college. States get to decide how to select them, they're not even required to have a popular election. Changing the way they divvy up their ec votes does not require a constitutional amendment."

Right! And the Farcical nature of Bush v. Gore was that Florida had already certified its electors, and neither SCOTUS nor any power on earth could force them, or even allow them, to change that certification.

Blogger Jack Ward November 07, 2016 2:19 PM  

Luv it, darn it, REALLY love it. Now, to start harassing those state legislators here in AL.

Blogger Jack Ward November 07, 2016 2:21 PM  

And: Vox and brain trust; write a manual or three on the very best way to cause the state political class to toe the line. Or, lose their cushy rice bowl.

Anonymous Hrw-500 November 07, 2016 2:28 PM  

Slightly off-topic but the blogger nicknamed Captain Capitalism posted a good rant in his blog about "A world without white people". http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2016/11/a-world-without-white-people.html

This is a wish then Lena Dunham should be careful for what she wished for...

Blogger lowell houser November 07, 2016 2:29 PM  

Sorry Vox, the voting machines are going to hand the witch the Oval Office. The military and federal law enforcement has been sufficiently purged of patriots to stave off any attempts at stopping it. It's 1860 again. America now heads into judgement.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 2:32 PM  

Let's get chatting about this on gab, gents. Check the #DreadIlk tag.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 07, 2016 2:47 PM  

Why would Illinois, run by Democrats,

For the same reason they allow completely unregulated homeschooling: whenever there's a hint that they're about to encroach on it, people swarm the capitol and scare them into stopping. It won't be an easy battle, for sure, but why not try?

Blogger Silly But True November 07, 2016 2:48 PM  

@123,

Yes. But it creates obstacles. States who have already passed law to join the popular vote compact even if the trigger has not yet been reached are an uphill battle; if the compact ever went into effect, there would be dueling pressures for the same electoral votes.

And it shows that the opposition already has a ground game to undermine this proposal and plays to the Democratic strength: high total population count.

This compact undermines the will of individual States' voters and subjects them to the whims of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

And further, it is on a stealth path to executing; this is like all of the progressives' wins. It's on books in five places. It's a decades-long strategy. They can keep chipping away, silently. Then when final State passes its law, everyone else forgot theirs is on the books.

The war against that compact needs to be joined sooner than later. Illinois is a great one to repeal and get this idea into law given the Republican-friendly atmosphere currently.

Silly but True

Blogger Lovekraft November 07, 2016 3:05 PM  

It would be a lot easier to cultivate a fanatic Baptist Fundamentalist faction that everyone is terrified of.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 3:06 PM  

The war against that compact needs to be joined sooner than later. Illinois is a great one to repeal and get this idea into law given the Republican-friendly atmosphere currently.

Ah. I thought you were saying that "We don't need to do this by-district thing because this popular vote compact is in the works".

Blogger James Dixon November 07, 2016 3:08 PM  

> Well, yes, the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.

The republic died in the 1850's, dh.

But yes, California is the appropriate place to try this, since it's a referendum state.

Blogger pyrrhus November 07, 2016 3:09 PM  

The compact is a very dangerous idea, which needs a stake through its heart. It is blatantly unconstitutional but we can't count on SCOTUS for anything.

Anonymous BGKB November 07, 2016 3:10 PM  

This idea has been pushed for years but the globalist UNIparty is opposed to it. The big problem with CA is that at least 20 of its EVs come from illegal aliens being counted on the census.

"I mean, if every voice counts why do rural voters count more than the inner-city Democrats?"

Because the dead city voters shouldn't have a voice, especially if they where not democrats in life.

As I recall, the gains for the right would be huge -- so huge that the urban elites would never consider it, of course.

Liberals might just fall for it thinking everyone they know is a shitlib.

Men of the west are hypocritical and cheaters at heart. They can't be trusted because they possess no honest bones.

The left is literally shitting the 3rd world into states to win with Bath House Barry Obama telling illegal aliens its ok for them to vote because his DOJ will look the other way. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/no-surprise-obama-implored-illegal-aliens-vote/

idiots in LA and SF could be convinced that its all about giving more voting rights to disenfranchised minorities and women and queers.

Telling people who said bad things about TWINKS4TRUMP that they are old bitter queens really set them off.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 3:11 PM  

It's worth a shot in Illinois as well James Dixon. There's a surprising number of Republicans in power.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 3:13 PM  

Seriously though let's all shut up and send emails.

Blogger lowercaseb November 07, 2016 3:16 PM  

Student in Blue wrote:Seriously though let's all shut up and send emails.

Now that's something I can get behind.

Blogger l' Américain November 07, 2016 3:18 PM  

Not only would this ensure the left's defeat in all elections, it would ensure that they get electorally raped in the process.

Blogger Open Carry November 07, 2016 3:19 PM  

Silly But True wrote:This compact undermines the will of individual States' voters

If the compact ever comes into force, there will eventually be a SCOTUS review. One would expect a conservative SCOTUS to rule that while a state has latitude in how it allocates its electoral votes, the democratic aspects of the allocation process should only involve the voters of that state, not those of other states, until and unless the EC is abolished by a constitutional amendment. The problem is, there may not be a conservative SCOTUS at that point, and who knows how the conservative one would rule either. So, it's best to resist this compact so it doesn't come into force at all.

OpenID basementhomebrewer November 07, 2016 3:32 PM  

dh wrote:The evolution of this is however straight democracy. Which is exactly what the urban types want to drown out representation of suburban and rural Americans.

I mean, if every voice counts why do rural voters count more than the inner-city Democrats?

Secondly, it's only a band-aid. The House re-alignment in 2020 will once again re-balance the districts, and gerrymandering can only hold off the wolves, not displace them.


Why should people in the city get to rule the rural people in the nation? Your argument writ large is why can't everyone in the world vote in every election in every nation? Every voice counts right?

Taken to a more practical checks and balances level, Is it easier to rig 15-20 precincts in a major city or 200+ across a state? It's an open secret that the Democrat machine owns most major cities and there has been routine instances that point to shenanigans (precincts voting 100% for 1 candidate).

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 3:33 PM  

@155 yeah I'd expect there'd be a huge fight over it. Definitely on equal protection grounds. Something like "if a state has a popular vote favoring one candidate, the legislature can't give the EV votes to another candidate because of what the voters in another state decided." Its essentially the smaller states giving their people's voting rights over to the larger states. It might be different if the state wasn't having a popular vote, but if the state is actually having a vote you run into issues of disenfranchising the voters if the state doesn't follow their own citizen's voters.

I really think my Ninja-Warrior proposal is more constitutional.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 07, 2016 3:35 PM  

"dh wrote:This doesn't remove the electoral college. States get to decide how to select them, they're not even required to have a popular election. Changing the way they divvy up their ec votes does not require a constitutional amendment.

Well, yes, the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. That is usually held to mean, a representative democracy. I suppose a state could try to institute a monarchy or something, but it usually comes down to that clause.


No. Does not contradict or interfere with republican form of government. States could, and some did in the early years of POTUS elections, have their state gov't select the electors without having a general election, just like they could re: senators. A "republican form of government" doesn't require states to have a popular election to select the electors the choose to send to the electoral college to vote for POTUS.

Blogger OGRE November 07, 2016 3:38 PM  

@158 right. The President was never intended to be directly elected by the people. When the original constitution is looked at as a Contract between the State governments instead of as a nation-founding document, it becomes clear that the fed gov was meant as a ruling body for the State govs; the Senate and the President were meant to be representative of the State's interests not the citizens.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 3:39 PM  

"Seriously though let's all shut up and send emails."

I love you.

Anonymous genericviews November 07, 2016 3:42 PM  

I doubt it would make much difference. A district by district race would more approximate the popular vote, which runs pretty consistently 50-50 since Clinton first got elected. With continued demographic shift, It does become inevitable that the Dems gain a permanent majority. The only avenue against this is to reverse the policies that created the shift. Start by ending immigration from the third world. Total absolute zero. Then start deporting the ones that are already here but not yet citizens. And overturn the accepted practice of birthright citizenship. That's how you hold the line for 50 years.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 07, 2016 3:45 PM  

In 1789, the first US presidential election of George Washington, only two states, Pennslvania and Maryland had popular election to choose electors, all the others were selected by state legislatures.

It wasn't until 1828 (IIRC) when all the states used a popular vote to select electors.

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 4:15 PM  

@Nate
I love you.

Gay covered with glittering gay sauce.

Blogger Bill Halsey November 07, 2016 4:22 PM  

In case it hasn't already been posted: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Blogger Student in Blue November 07, 2016 4:29 PM  

I emailed today. Have you?

Also a bit ticked no one gave feedback on my first draft. Are y'all just gonna talk about how it's a good idea, or are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

Blogger Silly But True November 07, 2016 4:35 PM  

Sorry, I did some more digging. Washington State's list is outdated.

The National Popular Vote compact law has been enacted in _eleven_ states accounting for 165 electoral votes: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

It takes effect when enacted by states with 105 electoral votes more; I.e. it is downhill racing for them now.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 07, 2016 4:37 PM  

Bill Halsey wrote:In case it hasn't already been posted: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Shared on GAB. I think he's spreading cleverly disguised red-pill viruses.

OpenID kbswift November 07, 2016 4:43 PM  

@161

Looking at the data, going by congress districts would have given romney the win 224 to 210, although mccain still lost 192 to 240.
Going by districts that are "safe", more than 10% difference, obama would have edged romney 180 to 166.
Since the demographics are still probably shifting blue, this strategy would help republicans for a while but very unlikely to hold for the next 50 years.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections

Blogger Ezekiel November 07, 2016 4:54 PM  

patrick kelly wrote:Bill Halsey wrote:In case it hasn't already been posted: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Shared on GAB. I think he's spreading cleverly disguised red-pill viruses.

This is the same guy who used to quote The Last Psychiatrist (and 28sherman on one occasion, I think) so if he's not alt-right then he's part of the "alt-left" that has a lot in common with us philosophically (I used to hear the two terms used about equally often when I first started hearing them on Keith Preston's website).

Blogger Fenris Wulf November 07, 2016 5:00 PM  

I was skeptical, until I thought about it for a bit. This plan is a non-starter in the blue states, but it might go through in the red states. In other words, it would keep the red states red, regardless of future demographic change.

Of course, if Hillary gets in, she'll scream "voter suppression" and unleash a torrent of DOJ lawsuits to stop it.

Anonymous Deplorable Dave November 07, 2016 5:06 PM  

To those of you bitching and moaning about getting in touch with your state representatives, suck it the fuck up, buttercups!

It's SUPER EFFECTIVE. Many of them are apocalyptic with joy that someone is paying attention to them (most pols have quite a bit more narcissism going on than a neurotypical).

If you have doubts, look at the changes the Free State Project has made in New Hampshire - and we're just getting started.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 07, 2016 5:07 PM  

"Men of the West" ......nerds.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT November 07, 2016 5:40 PM  

I love the idea. But the democreeps will fight it tooth and nail. Of course we should push, but be prepared for massive resistance and a long battle.

Then again liberals are bad at math. Maybe a few fake 'peer reviewed scientific papers' that claim it will actual help them?

I also wonder if lawsuits could work? Take the "my vote doesn't count, and my rights are violated, when my state votes as a block" angle.

Blogger wreckage November 07, 2016 5:50 PM  

@171 is right.

Anything that makes a pollie more important, they will endorse.

This makes State pollies more important, ergo....

Blogger Harold November 07, 2016 6:08 PM  

I had a few friends on facebook all for electing the president by popular vote. Until I posted the following, and they all said "Hell, No!"
****
Let me give you an example of something the EV system prevents, and then give your thoughts. Let's say Candidate Smith, a favorite son from NY, rolls up a 2 million vote margin in NY, 1.3 million from NYC alone. And Candidate Jones takes every other state and DC by margins from 5,000 to 200,000 votes, but loses the popular vote by 10,000 votes because Smith won NY, and only NY, but by a large margin.

Question: Should Candidate Smith become President of the UNITED STATES when only one state voted for him?

Blogger Timmy3 November 07, 2016 6:26 PM  

California will never agree to this. The states can decide how they want to run their own elections.

Blogger Tallen November 07, 2016 7:17 PM  

More hints about Tony Podesta's proclivities from the WaPo in 2004 - his home is filled with paintings of naked children: https://archive.fo/vddrO

Sorry if it was mentioned already.

Blogger Aziz P. November 07, 2016 7:46 PM  

such a system would end up diluting the value of a single electoral vote - and the MOTW analysis assumes that a CD that voted GOP for representation in Congress would automatically vote that way in the presidential, which is certainly untrue. A good dioscussion is here: http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/688/which-us-states-give-proportional-presidential-electoral-college-votes-to-candid

essentially, the CD-prportional vote system as proposed would in practice be very similar to abolishing the EC entirely. Here's what such a system would have meant in 2012 for example:

2012 Electoral Vote: Obama 62%; Romney 38%
2012 Popular Vote: 50%, Romney 49%
2012 Proportional Electoral Vote by State: Obama 51%, Romney 49%

it does lessen the advantage, but doesn't change the outcome.

also see: http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/18/electoral-votes-awarded-proportionally-2/

Blogger Harold November 07, 2016 8:01 PM  

Just a suggestion- post this image with this wording "��BREAKING: ICE agents deploying to polling stations to arrest anyone trying to vote illegally!" on your facebook page or other social media. It's obviously not true. But that's beside the point. The purpose is to suppress illegal voting.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 07, 2016 8:43 PM  

I thought I'd put on something like looks sort of official uniform-ish, wear a badge cut out of tinfoil, and stand across from a polling place with a clipboard and a camera all day.

Blogger Nate November 07, 2016 11:19 PM  

"it does lessen the advantage, but doesn't change the outcome. "

You're ignoring the fact that the MOTW are only talking about implementing it in places where it benefits the right and not pushing it, or actively resisting it in red states that benefit the left.

Anonymous Aziz P November 08, 2016 12:08 AM  

Nate wrote:"it does lessen the advantage, but doesn't change the outcome. "

You're ignoring the fact that the MOTW are only talking about implementing it in places where it benefits the right and not pushing it, or actively resisting it in red states that benefit the left.



how could MOTW prevent a parallel effort?

And actually, there's a first-mover disadvantage. Any state that adopts it will automatically see their relevvance to the next election decrease. As the first link i shared above puts it,


let's take the case of Alaska, which, according Nate Silver, saw the most dramatic swing from the 2008 election to 2012. (In the case of Alaska, the reason is pretty obvious - Sarah Palin's involvement in the election took a normally solidly republican state, and made it extremely Republican.) This most dramatic swing of the state represented a change of 28%.

In our hypothetical state with 10 electoral votes, this would represent a swing of 3 electoral votes - maybe going from say 9-1 to 6-4. That represents the top end of a state. Putting as much time and effort into the state yields, at most, 3 votes. If any other state doesn't do this, that state is worth 10 votes, just for swaying a few people. From an effort perspective, that state isn't worth campaigining in.

Now, again, Alaska in reality, only has 3 electoral votes. Thus, even with such a dramatic swing, 28% is less than 1 elector. As such, just about every 3 vote state will always split 2-1. And, in just about every one of the 3-vote states, it almost always goes in the same direction.


there is actually a movement for a national popular vote. See - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I think that in the high-EV state limit, a CD-based proportional system approximates the popular vote. And that should terrify conservatives, because it would mean 99% of the election will be in 5 media markets.

Blogger bosscauser November 08, 2016 6:42 PM  

First we prevent "importing new voters" then watch blue states join to maintain their power...
Trump will stop the money to them for sanctuary cities and various left-wing boondoggles. They have to raise taxes.
Raise taxes raises red voters....

Let's go #Trump and hurry!

Blogger bosscauser November 08, 2016 6:43 PM  

The best solution I've heard without reducing right-wing's slight grip on the polity!

Let's go #Trump and hurry!

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 08, 2016 8:30 PM  

The States, each as a whole, in union ekects the POTUS and VPOTUS. I am not goung to agree on what probably is the only Constitutional stricture not ignored. If proportional election becomes law, that will be the final end of what connstitute an union of states. It will be the final consolidation Lincoln, piss on his grave, sought.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 09, 2016 9:56 AM  

@185 Did I write that? Good grief!

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 09, 2016 10:00 AM  

The States, each as a whole, in union, elect the POTUS and VPOTUS. I am not going to agree (to go all proportional electors), on what probably is the only Constitutional stricture not ignored. If proportional election becomes law (an amendment will required), that will be the final end of what constitute an union of states. It will be the final consolidation Lincoln, piss on his grave, sought.
Amend the Constitution to repeal the 17th amendment and to establish that states' electors represent their state as a whole -- no proportional allocation.

Anonymous jdgalt November 12, 2016 12:53 PM  

The National Popular Vote (.com) plan is pretty much the same idea. Which is why I support it, even though the Left thought it up. They will not be happy when it takes effect.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts