Read on Twitter
On the surface, this fits with aggressive GOP actions in Wisconsin to build themselves favorable maps. It would assign electoral votes by Congressional district - and therefore potentially be gerrymandered.
But it could, oddly, benefit Democrats. 1/n https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/01/08/gop-eyes-bill-to-reallocate-wisconsins-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a1d5e186-a2d0-49c2-8e6f-e883c9bd1af1
But it could, oddly, benefit Democrats. 1/n https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/01/08/gop-eyes-bill-to-reallocate-wisconsins-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a1d5e186-a2d0-49c2-8e6f-e883c9bd1af1
This year Biden got all 10 of Wisconsin's electors.
But because Trump won the vote in 6 districts, under this proposed new law the outcome would have been 6 for Trump, 4 for Biden.
That would be a shortsighted view for Republicans to take, because... 2/ https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-2020-2016-and-2012
But because Trump won the vote in 6 districts, under this proposed new law the outcome would have been 6 for Trump, 4 for Biden.
That would be a shortsighted view for Republicans to take, because... 2/ https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-2020-2016-and-2012
...Wisconsin shows signs of trending toward Republicans, suggests @FiveThirtyEight's @baseballot. If so, then Republicans will cede electors to Democrats in 2024 that they could otherwise win outright.
And thanks to modern levels of partisan loyalty... https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1348750658502062085
And thanks to modern levels of partisan loyalty... https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1348750658502062085
...districts would turn out nearly the same in every election.
Out of 8 districts it would have been
2012: 5 R districts (5 D, 5 R electors)
2016: 6 R (2 D, 8 R)
2020: 6 R (4 D, 6 R)
With 7 electors a lock for either party, effectively only 3 electors would be at stake. 4/
Out of 8 districts it would have been
2012: 5 R districts (5 D, 5 R electors)
2016: 6 R (2 D, 8 R)
2020: 6 R (4 D, 6 R)
With 7 electors a lock for either party, effectively only 3 electors would be at stake. 4/
That would reduce Wisconsin's power considerably. How much attention would Presidential candidates pay to the Badger State if the payoff was as small as winning Alaska or one of the Dakotas?
But it gets worse for Wisconsin Republicans. /5
But it gets worse for Wisconsin Republicans. /5
They're not even in charge of redistricting this year. Control is divided between a (gerrymandered) legislature and Democratic Governor Tony Evers*.
So the new map is likely to favor Republicans less than the current one. Even less payoff.
*(rhymes with beavers. did you know?)
So the new map is likely to favor Republicans less than the current one. Even less payoff.
*(rhymes with beavers. did you know?)
There are wrinkles. There is a rumor that the General Assembly will attempt to pass a map by resolution, thus doing an end run around Evers. That would be a pretty radical step and break lots of precedents. It's not clear it could get past the state Supreme Court. A long shot. /7
To summarize, this plan would
- guarantee Democrats 2-3 electoral votes every election for a decade in an increasingly Republican state; and
- reduce Wisconsin's national influence to that of one Dakota.
Are you sure you want that, cheeseheads? /8
- guarantee Democrats 2-3 electoral votes every election for a decade in an increasingly Republican state; and
- reduce Wisconsin's national influence to that of one Dakota.
Are you sure you want that, cheeseheads? /8
These are the pressures that led nearly all states to adopt winner-take-all rules in the first place. The concept was pioneered by Thomas Jefferson for the same reasons, way back when.
To read more about our absurd Electoral College, see my history: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3549046
/end
To read more about our absurd Electoral College, see my history: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3549046
/end
P.S. here's a similar push in Michigan:
https://twitter.com/nicklafave/status/1348833617456336897?s=21
But the same logic applies: 2011 GOP gerrymandered state, but the mechanisms for drawing districts are gone. Now they have a D governor and an independent redistricting committee. /P.S.#1
https://twitter.com/nicklafave/status/1348833617456336897?s=21
But the same logic applies: 2011 GOP gerrymandered state, but the mechanisms for drawing districts are gone. Now they have a D governor and an independent redistricting committee. /P.S.#1
So where would you want to do it? It's a good strategic move in a 1) purple state with 2) partisan control of linedrawing, and 3) votes to pass such a law.
GA/FL meet these criteria. But even then, would they want to give up influential status to serve national power? /PS/end
GA/FL meet these criteria. But even then, would they want to give up influential status to serve national power? /PS/end
