What do you think about the future of the Republicans?

[The Kernel]

You are looking at too narrow a picture. The Republicans had some of their best results since 1950 at the State level. Their message appeals to a broad base of the populace, they lost the popular vote in the house by a couple percentage points and the vote for President by a relatively tiny margin To put it bluntly, the republicans still have the support of well over 40% of the voting populace. With that level of support and the structural foundations that support the de facto two-party system inside the US there can be no existential threat to the Republican party, and the Republican party doesn't need to shift away from its old "big tent" strategy; if the Republican party had tailored its message to win over 2% of the voting populace we'd have a Mormon President right now. It's just a question of fine-tuning.

The Presidential race was never close--Romney was losing all year long and never did he have an electoral path that was anywhere near as favorable to him. The raw popular vote breakdown doesn't especially matter in the Presidential election since you cede 80% of the states to begin with so you don't even try to boost turnout in those. These sorts of things impact Democrats much more than Republicans because the typical GOP voter is by nature much more likely to vote without encouragement.

I really don't think you can say that Romney going into election day a 10:1 underdog (At least according to Nate Silver's formula which I'm inclined to give credence to) made this race at all competitive, especially given that this election on paper should not have been good for the Democrats. The GOP by all rights was supposed to at least have an even shot of retaking the Senate...instead they lose 2 seats. House seats should have been a net gain given the Gerrymandering but instead saw a loss of 8 seats. By all accounts the GOP got their clocks cleaned.

This is what irks me about this discourse. When you can get 40+% of the voting populace to vote for your candidate you are not "clearly out of touch with people". Jill Stein? Clearly out of touch with the populace. Virgil Goode? Ditto. The GOP? Clearly in touch enough to remain a dominant (and with democratic incompetence the dominant) party inside the United States.

40% of the population will ALWAYS vote for one party or the other, that's just the way this stuff works. Even in ridiculously one-sided races you don't expect anything above a 20-point victory which is exactly what 60-40 support works out to.

We have a two party system in the US which means someone votes for one party or the other and most people tend to make up their minds early. The things that should scare Republicans is that typically they have made up for their reduced numbers (Registered Democrats nationwide have a decent sized average in registered voters but not necessarily in voters that show up) by having high turnout and ironclad unity but this path the GOP is on is not only going to alienate more of the middle, but it has a good chance of peeling away voters who fit the "California Conservative" model of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. On one hand the GOP continues to pander to the culture wars but guess what: they aren't even fiscally responsible anymore! It's not fiscal responsibility to hold up a bill with no room for compromise because of petty politics and personal pride.

Worse yet, their actions have started energizing the Democrat base instead of the reverse. There's a reason why the culture wars ultimately became a losing game for the GOP to pursue on a national stage: these wedge issues are bigger turnout boosters for the Democrats than the GOP (since as I said before the Democrats usually need more of a reason to show up and vote than the Republicans) and are thus ultimately unproductive.

[Straha]

The Presidential race was never close--Romney was losing all year long and never did he have an electoral path that was anywhere near as favorable to him. The raw popular vote breakdown doesn't especially matter in the Presidential election since you cede 80% of the states to begin with so you don't even try to boost turnout in those. These sorts of things impact Democrats much more than Republicans because the typical GOP voter is by nature much more likely to vote without encouragement.

I really don't think you can say that Romney going into election day a 10:1 underdog (At least according to Nate Silver's formula which I'm inclined to give credence to) made this race at all competitive, especially given that this election on paper should not have been good for the Democrats.

A. You are making a hash of basic statistics. The odds of Romney winning does not reflect on the support that the Republican Party had, they reflect the ability for Romney to sway a core five to seven percent of the American populace, a task he was horrendously ill-suited for. The fact that he was able to raise as much money as he was, despite the flaws everyone knows and (quite rightly) harps about speaks quite eloquently to the fact that the Republican Party is nowhere near the point of collapse people are trying to make it out to be. Moreover, I think there is a fundamental disconnect here between the perception of Romney as quixotically doomed candidate and the immense amount of support he was able to mobilize. Which brings us to..
B. If elections of this sort were precedent for the health of a party the Democrats would have been dead post '84, post '88, and post '92 (when Bill Clinton got a full 43% of the popular vote). The Republicans would have been doomed to collapse post '96, or after they were miserably humiliated in 1974, after their President was hounded from office and the Democrats had a 2/3rds majority in the House and a 60+ seat majority in the Senate which they maintained into 1976. Instead the Republicans pulled their act together, coalesced, and starting dominating American politics for the next thirty years. These sorts of performances are not predictors for the future.
C. I have yet to see any warrants as to why the Republicans will have to fall apart over the next four to six years. The most that anyone has claimed is that the Republicans are detached from certain demographic groups without any explanation as to why these demographic groups are supposedly 'key' to the Republicans future.

The GOP by all rights was supposed to at least have an even shot of retaking the Senate...instead they lose 2 seats. House seats should have been a net gain given the Gerrymandering but instead saw a loss of 8 seats. By all accounts the GOP got their clocks cleaned.

I am curious as to under what definition having your 'clocks cleaned' leaves you with control of the House and only a net loss of two seats in the Senate.

40% of the population will ALWAYS vote for one party or the other, that's just the way this stuff works. Even in ridiculously one-sided races you don't expect anything above a 20-point victory which is exactly what 60-40 support works out to.

We have a two party system in the US which means someone votes for one party or the other and most people tend to make up their minds early. The things that should scare Republicans is that typically they have made up for their reduced numbers (Registered Democrats nationwide have a decent sized average in registered voters but not necessarily in voters that show up) by having high turnout and ironclad unity but this path the GOP is on is not only going to alienate more of the middle, but it has a good chance of peeling away voters who fit the "California Conservative" model of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. On one hand the GOP continues to pander to the culture wars but guess what: they aren't even fiscally responsible anymore! It's not fiscal responsibility to hold up a bill with no room for compromise because of petty politics and personal pride.

Worse yet, their actions have started energizing the Democrat base instead of the reverse. There's a reason why the culture wars ultimately became a losing game for the GOP to pursue on a national stage: these wedge issues are bigger turnout boosters for the Democrats than the GOP (since as I said before the Democrats usually need more of a reason to show up and vote than the Republicans) and are thus ultimately unproductive.

This is the same analysis that declared the Republican party a 'regional party' post-2008. It's about as right as it was then.
You also contradict yourself. You start with the premise that the Two-Party system makes people select a party and vote for them regularly based on vague ideology. Then state that the Republican Party being vague about certain parts of its ideology will drive people away. Not only is this a historically false premise but as long as they set themselves up in opposition to the Democratic party it's an unrealistic fear because they never have to be truly fiscally or socially conservative, they just need to set themselves up as being more conservative than the other side. As long as they can get that message across (and it's a message that Journalists love to tell because it's so easy to understand) then they're fine.

[The Kernel]

A. You are making a hash of basic statistics.

Actually you are. But we will get to that in a second.

The odds of Romney winning does not reflect on the support that the Republican Party had, they reflect the ability for Romney to sway a core five to seven percent of the American populace, a task he was horrendously ill-suited for.

Newsflash: swinging that core five to seven percent is called "how elections are won".

The fact that he was able to raise as much money as he was,

Ability to raise money is not correlated directly with electoral success, particularly post-Citizens United. Do I really have to explain why?

despite the flaws everyone knows and (quite rightly) harps about speaks quite eloquently to the fact that the Republican Party is nowhere near the point of collapse people are trying to make it out to be.

I am making no argument that the GOP is finished, merely that they have some major challenges ahead to deal with. Please kindly take your strawman elsewhere.

Moreover, I think there is a fundamental disconnect here between the perception of Romney as quixotically doomed candidate and the immense amount of support he was able to mobilize. Which brings us to..

Walter Mondale mobilized an "immense" amount of support too. Hell, Ron Paul can bring some pretty immense crowds...is there a point to all this?

B. If elections of this sort were precedent for the health of a party the Democrats would have been dead post '84, post '88, and post '92 (when Bill Clinton got a full 43% of the popular vote). The Republicans would have been doomed to collapse post '96, or after they were miserably humiliated in 1974, after their President was hounded from office and the Democrats had a 2/3rds majority in the House and a 60+ seat majority in the Senate which they maintained into 1976. Instead the Republicans pulled their act together, coalesced, and starting dominating American politics for the next thirty years. These sorts of performances are not predictors for the future.

And? You really need to get off this strawman, I am saying that the GOP has some major electoral challenges in their current form and worse they have incentives to do the opposite of what is going to win them voters in the general elections. It's a tough position but not unrecoverable.

C. I have yet to see any warrants as to why the Republicans will have to fall apart over the next four to six years. The most that anyone has claimed is that the Republicans are detached from certain demographic groups without any explanation as to why these demographic groups are supposedly 'key' to the Republicans future.

Because they are continuing to destroy their brand so they clearly haven't hit bottom. This Fiscal Cliff debate has been a series of major blunders by the GOP across the spectrum and it is ALL of their own making.

I am curious as to under what definition having your 'clocks cleaned' leaves you with control of the House and only a net loss of two seats in the Senate.

Clearly you have not looked at the numbers around this election at all. With regards to the Senate, the Democrats had far more vulnerable seats up for grabs and even managed to win in states like Indiana and Missouri that don't traditional vote for Democrat Senators. That's a major reversal from the prediction of them having a 50/50 chance of retaking the Senate altogether.

As far as the House goes, you obviously never looked at the power of incumbancy in the House and when added to the full Gerrymandering control that the GOP had this cycle, they shouldn't have actually lost seats at all. The fact that the Democrats made any inroads is impressive.

This is the same analysis that declared the Republican party a 'regional party' post-2008. It's about as right as it was then.

Okay shut the fuck up about "same analysis" and whatever other bullshit strawman you come up with. I didn't say one fucking thing like that so keep your lies to yourself and stick to what I'm actually saying.

You also contradict yourself. You start with the premise that the Two-Party system makes people select a party and vote for them regularly based on vague ideology. Then state that the Republican Party being vague about certain parts of its ideology will drive people away.

There is nothing contradictory here. If the GOP got itself down to 40% of the country voting for them only, it doesn't make one bit of difference how resilient that 40% is as they are still losing by 20 points. Jesus grow a fucking brain.

Not only is this a historically false premise but as long as they set themselves up in opposition to the Democratic party it's an unrealistic fear because they never have to be truly fiscally or socially conservative, they just need to set themselves up as being more conservative than the other side. As long as they can get that message across (and it's a message that Journalists love to tell because it's so easy to understand) then they're fine.

No it's not as one-issue voters aren't common for voters that are swing votes and you aren't going to excite your base to turn out for you without throwing them plenty of red meat. So the two things that define the ability to win elections (attracting swing votes and getting your base to turnout) are put at odds with one another as the increasingly insane rhetoric is just turning people off, but the GOP base loves it and they can't take a risk because of the tendency of Republicans to get primaried out.

[Lord MJ]

States like Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio will not be winner take all states, but instead have votes allocated by congressional district, if the GOP gets their way by 2016.

That could significantly throw off the electoral calculus, given that the majority of those districts tend to vote Republican.

[The Kernel]

States that aren't swing states like the idea of doing that since it at least makes them theoretically competitive but swing states? They would be slitting their own throats and throwing away tons of ad revenue and campaign dollars that get spent--I just can't see anyone getting very interested in such a thing in any swing state.

[Lord MJ]

Mich and Wisconsin are traditionally blue states, though they were swing states in 2012. And in Ohio and VA, it would guarantee that the GOP would get the majority of both of those states electoral votes. True though, if they were going to win those states outright, then they would in fact be sacrificing electoral votes if they go with this strategy.

But the thought is that since there are Republican governments in states that vote blue in presidential elections, the republicans have a prime opportunity to permanently destroy the Democratic electoral map.

[DarkArk]

The most that anyone has claimed is that the Republicans are detached from certain demographic groups without any explanation as to why these demographic groups are supposedly 'key' to the Republicans future.

Because they are the fastest growing groups in the US. It should be noted that out of all demographic groups, Hispanics and Asians were among the only ones that Obama did better in '12 compared to '08 (taking into account age, income, race, urban/rural, etc.). Those are the two demographics that are predicted to double as a percentage of the overall population in the next 40 years; I would say the GOP has its work cut out for it. They're going to have to get at least some of those votes if they want to remain relevant on the national stage.

Now unlike some people I think political necessity will make them do so, and if they don't another party will come along and replace them like happened to the Whigs back in the early 1800s. It isn't like that voting block is going to disappear, and a complete collapse of American conservatism is complete nonsense.

[Broomstick]

Personally, I think they've fucked themselves. They took us over the fiscal cliff, and it seems very likely that they are going to stand against gun control, which an overwhelming majority of Americans want.

We haven't actually gone over the cliff yet.

In fact, the Democrats stand to gain somewhat if we go over the cliff, which means they will be at least partially to blame for the impasse even if the majority of the blame will go to the Republicans. At this point, there's a good chance there's more political capital in allowing the fall than not. Hence them all going on Christmas break, probably to come back and make token noises just before New Year's. Really, I've gotten to the point I just want to say go ahead, jump the country off that edge and let the chips fall where they may. I'm heartily sick of one stop-gap measure after another that just maintains a suck of a status quo.

They got elected purely because they played on people's fears of a black man getting elected! His skin color has everything to do with it!

Get a grip. They would have opposed ANY Democratic PotUS – maybe you're too young to remember the Clinton years? It's SOP for them. Sure, racism plays a part – there are definitely people who wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the second coming of Jesus simply because he's black – but it's not entirely a matter of racism. If racism was such an over-riding factor in the GOP Bobby Jindal wouldn't be a governor (he may not be of African descent but he's far too dark skinned for the white supremacists).

As pointed out, if it wasn't the birther bullshit it would be something else. They finally thought they'd nailed Clinton when it came out he's gotten a blow job from an intern in the Oval Office. The country just shrugged. Likewise, the vast majority just don't give a fuck about Obama's birth certificate at this point. They'll use anything and everything to attack a PotUS who isn't on their team. Half the racist shit you hear against Obama doesn't stem from real belief but rather the use of racism in true believers as a political tool.

[Simon_Jester]

They got elected purely because they played on people's fears of a black man getting elected! His skin color has everything to do with it!

You stupid, hysterical child.

Do you really think the Tea Party only succeeded because of a black president? Most of the Tea ideas have been around for years. All that changed was that the neocon establishment (relatively moderate domestically, aggressive foreign policy) got demolished during the Bush years. The Republican fanatic wing stepped into the power vacuum. That's all there is.

Sure, there's some racists in there. But they're not setting the tone of the whole thing. Most of the Republicans are a lot more bothered by tax increases than by blackness.

[Iron Bridge]

I'm unclear what is supposed to be so bad about the fiscal cliff. Surely the most effective deficit reduction measure proposed in any country?

[Spoonist]

I'm unclear what is supposed to be so bad about the fiscal cliff. Surely the most effective deficit reduction measure proposed in any country?

Are you sure that you should be studying economy if such things elude you?

[Gaidin]

I'm unclear what is supposed to be so bad about the fiscal cliff. Surely the most effective deficit reduction measure proposed in any country?

Picture how many decisions might have been different by CEOs if there wasn't a personal golden parachute. The "fiscal cliff" is sort of like us jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and at the moment we're trying to legislate a parachute into existence.

[Iron Bridge]

I'm unclear what is supposed to be so bad about the fiscal cliff. Surely the most effective deficit reduction measure proposed in any country?

Picture how many decisions might have been different by CEOs if there wasn't a personal golden parachute. The "fiscal cliff" is sort of like us jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and at the moment we're trying to legislate a parachute into existence.

They might make better decisions for the long term good of the firm?

Of course no one wants to cut deficits tomorrow. But if not tomorrow, when? Dragging it out over decades doesn't really make it better. Most countries are in the thrall of politicians looking at next week's headlines. US has an interesting set-up that might force politicians to make a short term painful, long term good decision.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course no one wants to cut deficits tomorrow. But if not tomorrow, when? Dragging it out over decades doesn't really make it better. Most countries are in the thrall of politicians looking at next week's headlines. US has an interesting set-up that might force politicians to make a short term painful, long term good decision.

Lord preserve us from dimwit sophomoric econ majors, we get a new one every year...

Okay. We begin this lesson with the concept of budget. A budget is a plan for spending a controlled amount of money on important things, so that you can plan those important things. Big organizations have, and need, budgets.

The key word here is controlled. An organization works hard on its budget. That way, it knows exactly how much money it has to work with, what commitments it can fulfill now, and keep fulfilling later.

A sensible budget cut happens over a period of time, so that people can plan: can say "okay, we're going to need to close this facility, BUT we know that six months ahead of time so we can start moving records and transferring key employees to some place else."

The "fiscal cliff" does not do that. The "fiscal cliff" basically takes every single branch of the government and says "OK, you now have 10% less money starting RIGHT THE FUCK NOW!" This is the opposite of having a budget. That is a recipe for chaos.

That was deliberate. The fiscal cliff was supposed to be a hammer held over Congress's head, to force them to work out some kind of compromise instead of just kicking the issue down the road forever. Unfortunately, it didn't work because the Republican rank and file refuse to raise taxes any time ever no matter what. So now there is a hammer held over the US government's head, and it's about to fall.

What a stupid mess.

[The Kernel]

Mich and Wisconsin are traditionally blue states, though they were swing states in 2012. And in Ohio and VA, it would guarantee that the GOP would get the majority of both of those states electoral votes. True though, if they were going to win those states outright, then they would in fact be sacrificing electoral votes if they go with this strategy.

But the thought is that since there are Republican governments in states that vote blue in presidential elections, the republicans have a prime opportunity to permanently destroy the Democratic electoral map.

This isn't about Democrats or Republicans--do you honestly think that this is a new idea? I think you need a bit of background on this issue. In order to better illustrate the problem here, let's split the states up into three types: Swing States, Big States and Little States as each of them is going to have a different perspective.

First the Swing States. This landscape can change, but right now it definitely includes Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and probably includes (depending on the election) Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa. That's twelve states tops. For these states their status as swing states is a huge boon--it means that they get a nice wad of spending (both during the campaigns but also full-time for pre-campaign activities (don't laugh, people are preparing for the 2016 Iowa Caucuses as we speak) as well as research, lobbying, etc. That's a lot of money to give up for a gain that is really not paramount to most rank-and-file members of the GOP (all politics is local after all).

Furthermore though, you've got an even bigger issue to tackle. Aside from the money, status as a swing state gives a state an enormous amount of political clout and is a breeding ground for higher office. The idea that either side would try to give away that status in order to bolster the party on a national stage is delusional.

Ok so swing states are out, what about Big States? Well Big States (defined as a state that is not swing but has a large amount of electoral votes like California, New York and Texas) don't have the clout of a swing state when it comes to campaign spending and power, but they do posses a lot of power by virtue of the large amount of electoral votes they posses and the knowledge that even if they aren't a swing state now, they still need to be taken seriously as no candidate could win if even one of his Big States defected. So this is a lower odds threat but one that is totally devastating.

Big States are definitely interested in proportionally allocating their electoral votes, but there are several major caveats to this. They aren't going to do it unless other states do it as well since splitting the vote will gain the Big State political power, but only if other states go along with the same plan. This is why you've seen a lot of states sign onto the idea of proportional allocation, but not unless a certain critical mass of state rollout is hit.

So all we have left are the Small States. These are low population states with few electoral votes that are also not Swing States--in other words the absolute lowest priority of a campaign. For them proportional allocation might actually make sense since a small amount of competitiveness is better than none at all and in a scramble for electoral votes could cause a candidate to make a mad dash for a competitive district or two. This isn't nearly as good as it sounds though since Nebraska and Maine already do this and it does work to an extent (Obama won one of Nebraska's districts in 2008 but lost it in 2012) but it hasn't really caused a major change in behavior yet.

The upshot of all this? Republicans may try to work on doing this in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania but as history has shown it never ends up working out because people simply aren't stupid enough to throw away whatever existing political power they have. Longer term there is a legitimate move to create proportional allocation (especially among Big States) but the movement has been relatively deadlocked lately.

[ryacko]

Big States are definitely interested in proportionally allocating their electoral votes, but there are several major caveats to this. They aren't going to do it unless other states do it as well since splitting the vote will gain the Big State political power, but only if other states go along with the same plan. This is why you've seen a lot of states sign onto the idea of proportional allocation, but not unless a certain critical mass of state rollout is hit.

Not true. Californian democrats want to allocate votes depending on who wins the national popular vote, but only if a majority of electoral vote states go along with the plan. (partly because they still want Gore to win)

Furthermore, if the big states proportionately distributed their votes, it would provide a large incentive to receive campaign spending. If a campaign had to spend several billion dollars to make a state into a battleground state, it wouldn't be worth the investment. But if a state had to spend several million dollars just to get an additional electoral vote, it would be worth it.

[Lord MJ]

This isn't about Democrats or Republicans--do you honestly think that this is a new idea? I think you need a bit of background on this issue. In order to better illustrate the problem here, let's split the states up into three types: Swing States, Big States and Little States as each of them is going to have a different perspective..

I'm well aware that people have pushed for proportional votes for years, I am one of the people that supports proportional electoral votes. However the latest proposals are by Republicans for the express purpose of enhancing their electoral chances, since their early voting, and voter ID laws didn't help this in the last cycle.

John Husted in particular is one pushing for this. Whether he actually succeeds or not, remains to be seen. If they lose seats in the upcoming state elections, I would not be surprised to see them trying to ram such bills through in their lame duck sessions.

[Lord MJ]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171690/go ... al-college#

The GOP’s New Voter Suppression Strategy: Gerrymander the Electoral College
Ari Berman on December 10, 2012 - 2:46 PM ET
For a brief time in the fall of 2011, Pennsylvania GOP Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi unveiled a plan to deliver the bulk of his state’s electoral votes to Mitt Romney. Pileggi wanted Pennsylvania to award its electoral votes not via the winner-take-all system in place in forty-eight states but instead based on the winner of each Congressional district. Republicans, by virtue of controlling the redistricting process, held thirteen of eighteen congressional seats in Pennsylvania following the 2012 election. If Pileggi’s plan would have been in place on November 6, 2012, Romney would’ve captured thirteen of Pennsylvania’s twenty Electoral College votes, even though Obama carried the state with 52 percent of the vote.

In the wake of Romney’s defeat and the backfiring of GOP voter suppression efforts, Pileggi is resurrecting his plan (albeit in a slightly different form) and the idea of gerrymandering the Electoral College to boost the 2016 GOP presidential candidate is spreading to other GOP-controlled battleground states that Obama carried, like Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. Thanks to big gains at the state legislative level in 2010, Republicans controlled the redistricting process in twenty states compared to seven for Democrats, drawing legislative and Congressional maps that will benefit their party for the next decade. (The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that Republicans picked up six additional House seats in 2012 due to redistricting.) Republicans now want to extend their redistricting advantage to the presidential realm.

Pileggi’s plan, if implemented in all of the battleground states where Republicans held a majority of House seats, would’ve handed the White House to Romney. According to Think Progress:

Assuming that Mitt Romney won every congressional district that elected a Republican House candidate in these key states, the Corbett/Husted (named after the Pennsylvania governor and Ohio secretary of state) plan would have given Romney 17 electoral votes in Florida, 9 in Michigan, 12 in Ohio, 13 in Pennsylvania, 8 in Virginia, and 5 in Wisconsin—for a total of 64 additional electoral votes.

Add those 64 votes to the 206 votes Romney won legitimately, and it adds up to exactly 270—the amount he needed to win the White House.

According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, Republicans currently hold the majority of House seats in thirty states, compared to seventeen for Democrats, giving them a big advantage in any bid to rig the Electoral College.

Take a look at Virginia, where State Senator Charles “Bill” Carrico Sr. introduced legislation to award his state’s electoral votes based on the winner of each Congressional district. Here’s what that would mean, reports ThinkProgress:

With a Republican-controlled redistricting passed earlier this year, Virginia Democrats were heavily packed into three districts. Under these maps, Obama won Virginia by almost a 4 point margin, yet he carried just four Virginia Congressional Districts. Were Carrico’s scheme in place, Mitt Romney would have received seven of Virginia’s 11 electoral votes despite receiving just 47.28% of the vote statewide.

Or take a look at Ohio, where controversial Secretary of State Jon Husted briefly voiced support for a similar plan following the 2012 election. Obama won Ohio by three points, but Republicans control twelve of eighteen congressional seats there, meaning that Romney would’ve netted more electoral votes than Obama if Husted had his way.

The GOP supported voter suppression efforts in 2012 as a way to make the electorate older, whiter and more conservative. But that push backfired when opponents of voter suppression turned out in large numbers for Obama, cementing an electorate that was younger and more diverse than in 2008. The shifting demographics of the country indicate that Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant” will only grow in size in future elections. So Republicans are searching for new ways to dilute the influence of Democratic voters.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Will the GOP’s bid to gerrymander the Electoral College be more successful now than it was last election cycle? Let’s hope not. Pileggi’s plan divided Pennsylvania Republicans and ultimately went nowhere. Husted had to quickly backtrack from his statements due to the national uproar. Here’s an idea for Republicans: instead of diluting the votes of your opposition, how about supporting policies—like immigration reform and a more equitable distribution of taxes—that will win you more votes from a growing chunk of the electorate?

And here’s another idea for both parties: instead of gerrymandering the Electoral College, how about abolishing it altogether?

The election is over, but the fight to protect voting rights isn't. Check out our coverage of the challenge to the Voting Rights Act.

[The Kernel]

What is your point? I'm aware that this looks attractive but the reason I pointed out why these plans always go nowhere stands.

[Terralthra]

Big States are definitely interested in proportionally allocating their electoral votes, but there are several major caveats to this. They aren't going to do it unless other states do it as well since splitting the vote will gain the Big State political power, but only if other states go along with the same plan. This is why you've seen a lot of states sign onto the idea of proportional allocation, but not unless a certain critical mass of state rollout is hit.

Not true. Californian democrats want to allocate votes depending on who wins the national popular vote, but only if a majority of electoral vote states go along with the plan. (partly because they still want Gore to win.

That's...exactly what was said?