Ruth Johnson thinks election rigging is fine by her

Well of course she does.

Republicans are like four year olds--they like rules that let them win, and they see nothing wrong with changing them mid-game if it's to their advantage. As for Gov. Snidely, rtw wasn't on his agenda either, until it was, and now we have an "expert" on elections saying it would be OK. I doubt Johnson would offer this opinion without some reason. Any bets on who will next weigh in that this might be a not-bad idea after all? Mac Center? News editorial page? An out of office repub or two?

This idea is nowhere near dead, IMHO.

---

by: happy camper @ Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 15:12:30 PM UTC

My impression of Ruth Johnson on O-T-R.

Was that she bordered on incoherent.  I think she had memorized her answers, but was a little vague on which questions they applied to.

In the case of her call for a "hybrid" between winner take all and district-by-district allocation, what could it possibly be?  She can't really have meant that she thinks the statewide winner should get 2 electoral votes (for the Senators) plus a few additional votes, while the winners of each CD would get a fraction of an elector for each district, can she?  Nobody has ever proposed such an arrangement, and I wonder whether such a system could be created in a way that didn't offend the U.S. Constitution.

I think she was using the answer she memorized for "Why do you support district-by-district allocation" but produced it as an answer to: "What system would you support?".

Her answers about voter fraud supposedly committed by non-citizens registering to vote was similarly mystifying.  I think she more or less admitted that 1) they were registered by her own employees, 2) that the problem was lack of training and supervision, and 3) that she's taken no steps whatever to remove them from the voter rolls.

But I can't swear to any of that, because of her continual non sequiturs.

---

by: Grebner @ Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:51:00 AM UTC

The Danger in the GOP EC Plan

Is that it probably does not directly offend the US Constitution. One or two states use it now.

---

by: LH @ Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 19:10:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was referring to Johnson's babble about a "hybrid plan".

It's pretty clear that Presidential Electors can be chosen either based on the statewide vote, or distributed according to the vote in each Congressional district (with two awarded statewide).

But as I untangled Johnson's O-T-R comments, she appeared to believe it would be possible to steer BETWEEN those two models.  Maybe she thinks 8 Electors would be handed out based on the statewide vote, with the remaining 8 based on the votes by the 14 CD's?  I can't figure out where the legislature would have the power to decree such a distribution; maybe it's there, but I've never heard of a state trying it, nor of the legal mechanism that would underlie it.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 03:30:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotta quash that Tea Party challenge head-on

The Tea Party controls the Republican Party - especially at Michigan conventions - and they have made a habit of defeating (or at least challenging) Republican incumbent officeholders. MSU trustee Don Nugent and State Board of Ed member Nancy Danhof were denied renomination in 2010 and 2012, respectively.

They nominated someone from the floor to run against Brian Calley in 2010, and look how close they came to defeating Schostak.

Calley, Johnson, and Schuette have good reason to be scared. One wonders if this isn't an attempt by Johnson to head off such an effort.

Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott

---

by: ScottyUrb @ Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 02:42:31 AM UTC

Political Hack!

SOS Johnson supports changing how Michigan awards electoral votes because she is a political hack, who along with other republicans, is tired of Michigan going for the Democratic presidential nominee, as it has for the past six election cycles.  

---

by: BarbByrum @ Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 15:12:01 PM UTC