What happens if the 2016 presidential election is obviously gerrymandered into giving false results?

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

In other words, it helps my team! GO RED TEAM! GO!

Nope. I don’t really have a team, but to the extent I do, it’s the Democrats.

If the Democrats controlled the Texas state house and decided to split the Texas electors the same way as proposed in Pennsylvania, it would be just as unfair.

Yes, we fucking know it’s legal and we fucking know that Maine and Nebraska do it. It would be like the Dodgers getting the MLB rulebook written so that when they give up a grand slam, it counts 3 runs for them and only 1 for the team that hit it.

Nope. You make the same mistake that many people make, thinking that we elect the president by popular vote. Sure, you know we don’t, but you act like we do. Fact is, the president is elected by the states, and the states get to decide how to allocate electors. End of story. The way we do things now may change. Some change will help the Democrats and some will help the Republicans. And some change will help one party now, but the other party later.

[Chronos]

I don’t see that BobLibDem is making that mistake at all. He knows that we elect the President through the electoral college, and that that’s just the way it is. But something being “just the way it is” in no way implies that the way it is is fair.

[John_Mace]

@Chronos

I don’t see that BobLibDem is making that mistake at all. He knows that we elect the President through the electoral college, and that that’s just the way it is. But something being “just the way it is” in no way implies that the way it is is fair.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Is it “fair” that each state gets 2 Senators? It is if you think all the states should have an equal say in the Senate, but it’s unfair if you don’t. The power that was vested in the states by the constitution in the area of elections and the makeup of the federal government wasn’t about being “fair”. It was about getting the states to agree to form a union.

[That_Don_Guy]

If that were to happen, my guess would be that:
(a) While a number of people would be vocal about it (there are still people who insist that Gore was “elected” in 2000, but Bush was “appointed by the Republican Supreme Court”), they would accept the result;
(b) The 2018 and 2020 elections would be referendums on this policy, as both parties would realize that controlling state legislatures (and giving said legislatures the right to draw the Congressional districts) suddenly gained much more importance (in fact, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it played a significant part in 2014, as, IIRC, Texas set a precedent concerning redrawing districts between censuses); and,
© There would be a surge in states (presumably, ones where most voters are Democrats) joining the “popular vote compact” (i.e. where all of the state’s electoral votes go to whoever wins the nationwide popular vote).

[BigT]

Leaving aside the discussion of what to do about it, I just can’t understand the rationalizations by the righties on this board. Democracy depends on the ability to vote out those you no longer support. If they make it where they can’t be voting out, they are attempting to make a dictatorship.

And the thing about gerrymandering is that it CAN overcome any margins. The ONLY thing keeping it from doing so is that people will notice something is up, and whether they have legal recourse or not, they will do something about it. It’s the fact that people would notice if there were only two Republicans, each in their own district, to a nation full of Democrats, all in one district. That’s the only thing providing limits–the appearance of fairness and propriety.

We’re not at the doomsday scenario yet because of that. But, make no mistake, that’s the direction these people are headed. The only comfort I have is thinking that, if they are resulting to these tactics, they must be losing badly. And hopefully that means that there will be a large enough margin to kick these people out.

The thing that’s so annoying about this is that it IS an issue of morality, but the Republicans have it exactly backwards. They are doing the exact same things tell their less informed followers that Obama is doing. They flat out say that it’s immoral for Obama to do it, yet they convince those same people that they are doing what is right in these states.

And the thing is, they’ll pull it off, just like they’ve convinced so many who have been helped by unions that unions are bad. Heck, they even convinced Democrats in Wisconsin that they have to let their Republican governor do what he wants rather than the Democrats standing up for their beliefs.

You keep saying we need to do something, but, as you guys have pointed out again and again when I try to mobilize groups to fight against their oppressors, it’s nearly impossible for one person to get people to fight. The reason I complain is that there’s just not much else I CAN do. I mean, aside from creating a cultic prophesy/conspiracy group that identifies the Republicans as the Antichrist or something.

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

I disagree. By implementing such rules, the Republicans would be destroying the democratic process. In effect, they’ll be saying “If we win a state, we get all the votes. If you win a state, we get some of the votes.” If one party abuses its power to such a degree, it is indeed time for revolution.

Do you … do you mean a “Second Amendment solution?”

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Do you … do you mean a “Second Amendment solution?”

Oh Shit, the Gotcha-Mobile is on the prowl!

Remember, that silly bitch from Nevada was suggesting 2nd amendment remedies if they didn’t win a legitimate election.

Permanently altering laws so that one side has a large advantage isn’t legitimate.

I know you’ll just say something along the lines of, “But it’s legal.” That isn’t the issue. The current electoral system produces results very close to the popular vote. Moving it farther from that, and locking those changes in place so as to provide a continuing series of wins when losing elections by huge popular-vote margins isn’t furthering democracy.

And if they are willing to do something so underhanded against the will of the populace, I’d say that rises to the level of huge demonstrations. We’re supposedly the greatest democracy on the Earth, and using shenanigans to make it so that 30% of the population can maintain permanent control is Banana Republic nonsense.

[BobLibDem]

(Second Half Of The) Second Amendment solutions are for Reich-wing douchebags like the aforementioned silly little twat from Nevada. Such a result should be responded with a general strike and massive protests in the state capitals that sanctioned the electoral theft. Burn down the statehouses, tar and feather the legistlators involved. If such a travesty were to take place, we can conclude that the American experiment was a failure and that it would be time to start all over again, by whatever means necessary.

[BigT]

The law has nothing to do with morality. A revolution is an extra-legal act. It has no reason to rely on some Amendment to make it legal. The American Revolution was against the law, too. Taxation without representation was enough impetus for a revolution before, and it would be again.

[elucidator]

Which would mean that 47% of the country had no reason to give a shit.

Revolution in America is a puerile fantasy, it was in 1968, and it hasn’t gotten better with age. And it is entirely unnecessary, the tools are at hand, always have been. Reactionaries aren’t nearly the enemy of progress that apathy is. Voter drives, awareness, talk to your neighbors, drive them to the polls. They use legal chicanery to trim us by 5%, we use shoe leather to smother them by twenty.

Besides, I have a cousin in the National Guard, and if I take a shot at him, its going to make Thanksgiving really awkward.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Considering that the proposals for this law have garnered opposition even by Republicans and have died, hopefully this may be considered a moot question.