Virginia GOP jumps on the deform-the-electoral vote bandwagon
Republicans know America doesn't support them, so now they're looking to count less of America
Topics: Politics, Republican Party, Virginia, Voting Rights, Electoral College, Editor's Picks, Politics News
First, Virginia Republicans pulled the old “surprise redistricting while a civil rights hero was out of town attending the president’s inauguration on Martin Luther King Day” trick. That was just a prelude to the real show: Blatantly anti-democratic electoral vote rejiggering. A state Senate subcommittee recommended a bill to “apportion electors according to which presidential candidate carries each of the state’s 11 congressional districts,” replacing Virginia’s current “winner-takes-all” system with one that would’ve given Mitt Romney a majority of Virginia’s electoral votes in 2012.
Similar proposals are being pushed in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, with the support of the national Republican Party, as represented by Republican National Committee head Reince Priebus. You can see why they like this plan: It is effectively the same thing as mass disenfranchisement of minorities, but it doesn’t look as awful and Jim Crow-y. Instead of trying to take votes away from black and poor and Hispanic people — which led to some bad press and a bunch of lawsuits — these new proposals simply ensure that the votes of rural white people will count more. Plus, it’s all legal, because the Constitution basically says you can pick electors any damn way you please. If a Republican-controlled state passed a bill declaring that its state’s electors should go to whichever candidate is richer, that would be totally constitutional.
The “arguments” for switching to district-based electoral vote schemes are all pretty risible — the author of the Virginia bill says the point is to make sure rural concerns aren’t ignored, though it seems to be a bit of an over-correction — but the arguments aren’t really meant to convince anyone. Because the party has given up on “convincing.” A party that would bother to dedicate any effort whatsoever to selling its policies to even slightly skeptical observers is not a party that decides to just change the rules of elections so that its guy would’ve won last time despite getting fewer votes.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene.





No Evidence FBI Is Targeting Chechen Separatists In Boston Bombing Case, Advocates Say
Bill De Blasio Won't Be Distracted By Anthony Weiner
State Roadblocks Could Complicate Marriage Momentum
Comments
77 Comments