Michigan Republican Wants to Rig Presidential Election

Many states controlled by Republicans — and only those controlled by Republicans — have considered bills to hand out the state’s electoral votes in a presidential election in a proportional manner. Now one of the most extreme members of the Michigan legislator is proposing an absolutely outrageous version:

Two bills seeking to rig the Electoral College in order to make it easier for Republicans to enter the White House were introduced in Michigan this month. The first bill, introduced by state Rep. Cindy Gamrat (R), would have awarded 9 of the state’s 16 electoral votes to Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, even though Romney lost the state of Michigan to President Obama by nearly 10 percentage points…

Michigan has not supported a Republican candidate for president since 1988. So any legislation shifting electoral votes away from the winner of the state as a whole is likely to favor Republicans.

Under Gamrat’s bill, the bulk of Michigan’s electoral votes would be awarded by congressional district — so the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each of the state’s districts receives exactly one electoral vote per district. This bill, should it become law, would give Republicans a significant advantage because Michigan’s congressional districts are gerrymandered to benefit Republicans. Republicans controlled over 56 percent of the state’s congressional districts after the 2012 election, for example, despite the fact that President Obama won over 54 percent of the popular vote in that state during the same election cycle.

Michigan is already heavily gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Because Republicans controlled the state legislature after 2010, they controlled the redistricting process. That’s why last year, Republican held 9 seats in Congress to 5 for the Democrats — despite the fact that 50,000 more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans. This bill would extend that to presidential elections. By handing out electoral votes by the highly gerrymandered districts, a Republican nominee would get fewer votes — a lot fewer votes — and get a majority of the electoral votes. That they could propose such a thing and defend it with a straight face shows you just how shameless they are.

"Also, a pardon essentially removes the ability to take the Fifth (it's impossible to self-incriminate ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"In the other side of the screen, it looked so easy."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"That... doesn't make me feel any better. Of course the state of the nation is ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."
"Also, you’re replying on the wrong thread on the wrong blog, Boris. Our conversation is ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • raven

    The GOP tries to win elections by cheating. Electoral frauds such as losing voter enrollments in Georgia and Kansas, voter roll purges, and their favorite, voter suppression measures to reduce nonexistent voter fraud.

    Plus their outrageous Gerrymandering wherever they can.

    One more scheme is entirely in keeping with their philosphy.

    They don’t want to live in a democracy, they want power and they want to rule. Add it the hates of the fundie xians. They hate democracy.

  • raven

    Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate …

    www. washingtonpost.com/…/senate-democrats-got-20-million-more-votes-t…

    Jan 5, 2015 – But those Democrats actually received 20 million more cumulative … won 46 of their 54 seats in 2010 and 2014, compared to the Democrats, … Two years later, thanks to the presidential election, it was 40 million votes higher. … 2. James Carville does Hillary Clinton no favors with his defense of her e-mails.

    1. In the last election, Senate Democrats received 20 million more votes than GOPers.

    2. They still lost control of the Senate.

    3. To paraphrase Toto, “I don’t think we are in a Democracy any more.”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    That they could propose such a thing and defend it with a straight face shows you just how shameless they are.

    There’s no shame in protecting democracy from you people.

  • raven

    Why shouldn’t the Republicans cheat and rig elections any way they can?

    It’s working for them.

    That we live in a democracy is getting a little hard to defend.

    1. Election rigging works.

    2. Blue states that went for Obama produce 2/3’s of the US GDP. They don’t have much influence in Washington right now with a GOP House and Senate.

    3. Citizens United ensures that our government is for sale to the 1% oligarchies.

    4. Surveys show that what the public supports has almost no influence whereas what money can buy does.

    5. Texas to take one example is majority nonwhite. It’s been said that if Texas women and nonwhites ever show up and vote, the old, male, white christofascists are finished. So where in the hell are they?

    Home of the free and land of the brave. And excuse me while I go look for my passport and a place to claim political asylum.

  • DaveL

    1. In the last election, Senate Democrats received 20 million more votes than GOPers.

    2. They still lost control of the Senate.

    3. To paraphrase Toto, “I don’t think we are in a Democracy any more.”

    Then again, the Senate was never really designed for population-proportional representation.

  • erichoug

    Can we just get rid of the electoral college already?

    Doing something about Gerrymandering wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

  • magistramarla


    I feel much the same way. Hubby is doing some work in Europe for a few weeks, and he’s actively looking for job openings here. We are desperate to get out of Texas, and a job with NATO is looking better and better.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    magistramarla, you’ll be back after you get sick of all that socialism.

  • laurentweppe

    Right wingers’ definition of “free competition”: Cheat to win.

  • raven

    …and a job with NATO is looking better and better.

    Sounds good to me.

    One of my problems with emigrating is, “where would I go”. Canada has Harper, Australia has Buschclone Abbott, and the UK has Cameron.

    One of my all time favorite places is the Mediterranean area. I liked the Italian beaches and islands. The Mediterranean is warm enough to swim in and mostly doesn’t have the crashing surf of the Pacific.

    The cats are a problem though. They like everything to stay the same from day to day. Even changing brands of dry food is a major change for them. Moving them 7,000 miles is a high barrier.

    It’s possible to live in the declining US empire AKA the Mad House or Fake Democracy, but more and more the question is becoming, why bother?

  • raven

    I do know 4 people so far who have left the USA. Well to do educated professionals who got fed up for various reasons.

    One couple with dual citizenship went back to Europe. They retired early and what put them out was…health care. They both have typical age related chronic conditions that aren’t too serious but require management. They looked at health insurance costs, went into shock, and ran. (This was before the ACA. The equation might have been different if pre-existing conditions weren’t counted.)

  • theguy

    @3 “There’s no shame in protecting democracy from you people.”

    Of course; government of the whitey, by the whitey and for the whitey. (I’m aware that Modus is being sarcastic, BTW)

  • oldgulph

    To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

    Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

    The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. – in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.


  • oldgulph

    A survey of Michigan voters showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

    Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.

    By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.

    By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.

    On December 11, 2008, The Michigan House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill by a bipartisan 65-36 margin


  • martinc

    I’m curious as to why Americans allow such an obviously biased gerrymander. Electoral boundaries here in Australia are the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, a strictly non-partisan organization which redraws boundaries as necessary (our electorates are not state-based and are roughly equally weighted for population, so occasional adjustments are necessary due to demographic changes).

    It’s a difference I have noticed with American versus Australian politics: while American politicians are much more free than ours to not vote en bloc (you always see a few Ds against and a few Rs for), there is a much greater acceptance of inherent bias in the American system – Republicans appoint Republican administrators who then happily administer in a non-even-handed way. Even your Supreme Court judges are largely considered ‘owned’ by the President who appointed them, which does not sound very healthy. That happens less in Australia, although our current right-wing government is ramping it up.

  • Nick Gotts

    Because Republicans controlled the state legislature after 2010, they controlled the redistricting process.

    I don’t think there’s another country with any serious claim to be a democracy that does not assign the responsibility for redistricting to a non-party body. Of course, subtle biases can creep in, but that gerrymandering is legal in the USA is utterly bizarre.

  • macallan

    I don’t think there’s another country with any serious claim to be a democracy that does not assign the responsibility for redistricting to a non-party body.

    Some countries ( like Germany ) avoid this problem to a degree – representatives that get a majority in their districts automatically get a seat, after that seats are added in order to reflect the overall popular vote. So the Bundestag grows or shrinks a little bit after every election but gerrymandering is far more difficult. Not impossible but nowhere near as easy & effective as in the US.