MI GOP to advance EC reallocation plan

[Marston]

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/11/electoral_votes_would_be_split.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Dems saving grace here is that Snyder wants to advance a transportation/roads funding package during lame-duck, also. Any proposal will almost certainly include tax increases and will require Democratic support to pass.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If this requires Democratic support to pass, isn't it basically a non-starter?  Surely the national party can exert sufficient pressure on any would-be useful idiots among the Democrats within the Michigan legislature.

[Skill and Chance]

Snyder's (smartly) going to kill it if he has to.  Look at his quote at the bottom.

Allocating EV this way is at least better than the gerrymandered CDs method.  I would support PV proportionality if done uniformly everywhere and the "senator" EVs are allowed to split (so PA would have been a 10/10 tie in 2012 for example).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is that program where states are encouraged to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote? The National Vote Compact?

[Skill and Chance]

What is that program where states are encouraged to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote? The National Vote Compact?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).  The problem is 1. It probably wouldn't get past this SCOTUS, 2. disparities between state voting laws, and 3. Incentive to be as liberal/conservative as humanly possible because if you can win 80% in California/Texas with 80% turnout, nothing else matters.

But a national proportional system would probably moderate both parties  because Texas D's and Northeastern R's suddenly matter.  And the risk of going against the popular vote or sending it to the House, while technically not impossible, is highly unlikely, particularly if you allow the "senator" EVs in each state to split.

[Devils30]

Michigan has a referendum process. It's pointless to pass something that voters would overturn easily.

[IceSpear]

Michigan has a referendum process. It's pointless to pass something that voters would overturn easily.

Didn't they use shady procedural maneuvers to make it so that right to work couldn't be overturned? I'd imagine they would do the same for this. Snyder is a real SOB.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

As a Michigan Republican myself, I think this is a terrible idea.  Trying to use any system other than winner take all, especially in a bigger state like Michigan, would make awarding electoral votes a huge mess.  If it passes, then I hope we have a veto referendum to repeal it.

[Stockdale for Veep]

What is that program where states are encouraged to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote? The National Vote Compact?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).  The problem is 1. It probably wouldn't get past this SCOTUS, 2. disparities between state voting laws, and 3. Incentive to be as liberal/conservative as humanly possible because if you can win 80% in California/Texas with 80% turnout, nothing else matters.

But a national proportional system would probably moderate both parties  because Texas D's and Northeastern R's suddenly matter.  And the risk of going against the popular vote or sending it to the House, while technically not impossible, is highly unlikely, particularly if you allow the "senator" EVs in each state to split.

Would that really happen though, don't most people consider themselves moderates?

The reason it won't happen is because it would make it much more likely that a strong third party could form. No one wants to share.

[Free Bird]

Michigan is weird

[Skill and Chance]

What is that program where states are encouraged to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote? The National Vote Compact?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).  The problem is 1. It probably wouldn't get past this SCOTUS, 2. disparities between state voting laws, and 3. Incentive to be as liberal/conservative as humanly possible because if you can win 80% in California/Texas with 80% turnout, nothing else matters.

But a national proportional system would probably moderate both parties  because Texas D's and Northeastern R's suddenly matter.  And the risk of going against the popular vote or sending it to the House, while technically not impossible, is highly unlikely, particularly if you allow the "senator" EVs in each state to split.

Would that really happen though, don't most people consider themselves moderates?

The reason it won't happen is because it would make it much more likely that a strong third party could form. No one wants to share.

Most present day likely voters consider themselves moderate/independent, but that is skewed because turnout is 65-70% in the swing and lean states, while it is only 50-55% in the hardcore partisan states. And with few exceptions, swing states swing because they have more persuadable voters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/12/the-states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/

The safe partisan states are generally larger, too.  California, New York and Texas are near the bottom, and the small safe R states add up to another Texas worth of R votes.  This is a recipe for never-ending Ted Cruz vs. Elizabeth Warren elections.     

[MurrayBannerman]

Michigan is weird

Driving through Michigan at 14, I thoroughly agreed.

I still agree in my early to mid 20's.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan is weird

Driving through Michigan at 14, I thoroughly agreed.

I still agree in my early to mid 20's.

Much of Michigan has had no new construction since the 1960s except perhaps at freeway interchanges.

[MurrayBannerman]

Michigan is weird

Driving through Michigan at 14, I thoroughly agreed.

I still agree in my early to mid 20's.

Much of Michigan has had no new construction since the 1960s except perhaps at freeway interchanges.

I saw a restaurant called Bangkok View. As a 14 year old, that was Pandora's Box.

[dmmidmi]

The state GOP has been talking about this for years. The actual chances of this happening are probably very slim.

[hopper]

I don't see Snyder signing this bill. Remember when he vetoed Voter ID.

[MurrayBannerman]

Michigan is weird

Says the guy from New England (read: Not Real America^TM).

And what's so weird about a place called "Bangkok View"? Doesn't every state have oddly named Asian Asian?

Nothing to a normal adult. To a 14 year old boy, it's hilarious.

[CountryClassSF]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

[Skill and Chance]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

Are you sure you would want to politicize EV allocation?  What if the map simply changes and the GOP candidate wins MI/PA/WI outright but still loses 10-15 EV from them?  And you would truly reap the whirlwind after the next Democratic wave when they retaliate by making lean R states proportional.

I wouldn't be opposed to proportional allocation, but it should be all 50 states or none.

[IceSpear]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

I'm sure you're also oh so concerned for the voices of Democrats in Texas being drowned out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

I'm sure you're also oh so concerned for the voices of Democrats in Texas being drowned out.

Of course it's a partisan power grab. California had to unilaterally disarm on redistricting while TX, FL, PA, OH, MI, VA, NC, and GA rammed through partisan Republican gerrymanders.

[Skill and Chance]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

I'm sure you're also oh so concerned for the voices of Democrats in Texas being drowned out.

Of course it's a partisan power grab. California had to unilaterally disarm on redistricting while TX, FL, PA, OH, MI, VA, NC, and GA rammed through partisan Republican gerrymanders.

Give it time and a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

[RedSLC]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

OK, so you really don't give a damn about the "will of the people" like you claim, and you really just want to make your vote count more than those filthy lefties. Thanks for finally dropping the populist bullsh**t and admitting to your real intentions.

[The_Doctor]

This won't pass. They've tried it in Pennsylvania, and it was shot down (I think, Pennsylvania?) because the Congressional Republicans protested that it would focus too much attention on their districts, thus endangering them for re-election. Similar protests, I assume, would come from the Michigan Republican congressional delegation, and rightfully so.

Governor Snyder would probably veto. If he ran for President, he also stands a shot at taking Michigan's 16 electoral votes, no need to dilute that either.

[hopper]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

I'm sure you're also oh so concerned for the voices of Democrats in Texas being drowned out.

Of course it's a partisan power grab. California had to unilaterally disarm on redistricting while TX, FL, PA, OH, MI, VA, NC, and GA rammed through partisan Republican gerrymanders.

TX-The 1990's map was actually pretty fair in a non-partisin  way in terms redistricting. The current map most of the gerrymandering is in districts in the Southern panhandle I think by the Mexican border.

FL-Well the current map is better than the 2000's map.

GA-Where do the Dems actually gain seats without gerrymandering? Most of the population of the state is in Atlanta where Dem Districts are already present.

CA-See Georgia above but in reverse for the GOP where can they gain seats in CA?

MI-Well having to draw VRA districts in the city of Detroit  where the population is shrinking screws that map up.I will add though non-gerrymandering would probably put Gary Peters old distict(the 9th district) back onto the map though.  Amash and Trott/Bentevolio districts are light to moderate gerrymanders.

VA-The Republicans probably protected Comstock/Wolf district but that's it. It made Conolly's district not competitive for Republicans though.

Ohio, PA, and NC are gerrymander messes though.