Potential that state may try to pull in exchange for shoring up pensions?

I knew the other shoe was going to drop eventually.

An interesting article in itself, I loved this little nugget buried towards the end.

Quote:

---

...even if Snyder gets the support he needs, the Hits feels safe to assume it would come with some unpleasant dealmaking happening behind the scenes, especially with another likely contentious lame-duck session this winter.

[[There’s plenty of piss-poor proposals we’ve heard Republicans are itching to pass too: there’s a plan that would change the state’s electoral vote allocation in presidential elections from a winner-take-all system to votes by congressional districts, and a bill to allow communities to opt-out of the Regional Transit Authority one pol said he’d use as a “political chip” for approving the $350 million pledge for Detroit’s bankruptcy.)

---

http://metrotimes.com/news/news-hits...-now-1.1668772

Jesus.

Detroit pops it's head out of it's ass and Lansing continues to dig deeper.

http://man-over-board.com/wp-content...ad-up-butt.png

This is Snyder's M.O. He's always doing some vile under the table B.S. yet some people think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's always preaches accountability, but nevers shows any himself.

Republicans who control state governments in states that trend "blue" in presidential elections are desperate to try to game the presidential elections. Of course, NO states that are run by the GOP and vote "red" seem to be making the same sort of proposals. I wonder why.......

If every state did this, or if we could just get rid of the ridiculous and undemocratic Electoral College, that would be a different matter.

[quote]there’s a plan that would change the state’s electoral vote allocation in presidential elections from a winner-take-all system to votes by congressional districts[/q]

So we're unhappy with Snyder that he's advocating a measure to make presidential elections much more representative? Can anyone justify 'winner-take-all' as 'fair'?

And of course he's doing what's in his party's self-interest. You want him to do things against his own interest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

So we're unhappy with Snyder that he's advocating a measure to make presidential elections much more representative? Can anyone justify 'winner-take-all' as 'fair'?

And of course he's doing what's in his party's self-interest. You want him to do things against his own interest?

---

Why attach it to something that has nothing to do with the electoral process?

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;431117]

Quote:

---

there’s a plan that would change the state’s electoral vote allocation in presidential elections from a winner-take-all system to votes by congressional districts[/q]

So we're unhappy with Snyder that he's advocating a measure to make presidential elections much more representative? Can anyone justify 'winner-take-all' as 'fair'?

And of course he's doing what's in his party's self-interest. You want him to do things against his own interest?

---

Wesley Mouch, why don't you apply for a job in his administration? I'm sure he could use another cheerleader.

Typical. Anyone who thought they were going to get anything even-handed from an administration that panders so completely to the "stick it to those crazy n-----s down in Detroit" crowd in the state legislature was delusional.

Guys, ok...the conspiracy theories are there. And yes, there are extremists and crazies. More than I'd like there to be.

But let's look at the other side of this for a second. You can't expect legislators -- especially outstate legislatures -- to support this out of the kindness of their hearts. They're feeling the hurt of lost revenue sharing and smaller budgets too. [[Remember the $500MM that the state owes us? Well, we're not the only municipality that is getting burned by the change in the revenue sharing model.)

The big leverage that Snyder has going into this is that there are real consequences if the state doesn't come through with their promise.

[[1) When their $350MM drops, so does the other $500MM pledged.
[[2) Without $850MM pledged, the bankruptcy falls apart.
[[3) You have the potential for not just art sales but also the state getting locked up in a costly litigation scenario over the state constitutional protections of the pensions.

So, no, I don't expect Bart Stupak to help Detroiters out because he wants to help Detroiters out. I expect him to be given the same pressure that's been coming on to pensioners for the last 9 months... Either a) they get on board with this pension settlement or b) they risk spending millions fighting in court and risk losing by having to cover all the pensions, COLAs and all...not to mention the fallout from putting the art at risk.

The art might not be selling point to outstate legislatures. But haven't you guys seen the theme of this bankruptcy? It's recurring.

- Banks are told to accept 30% in a mediation settlement rather than risk only getting 0-5% in a cramdown.

- Pensioners are told to walk away from COLAs, health insurance, and 5% of their pension check or risk losing 30% in a cramdown.

- The DIA and their supporters are told to raise $500MM in pledges otherwise they risk losing $2 Billion in a forced liquidation

- Belle Isle Visitors are told to quit it with the open intox and the speeding, otherwise they'll get hit with the DUI, the speeding ticket, and the arrest for 18 outstanding warrants.

- Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb county will soon be asked to choose between paying the $47MM per year in leasing fees in exchange for control...or they will pay out $150MM per year in profits to a privatization contract.

So it will be the same with the state legislature. That doesn't mean it's going to be easy...or that it won't be contentious or messy. But the theme will remain the same. $350MM makes this problem go away. But if you refuse, you create a $850MM problem right away and then add the possibility of a $2 Billion litigation liability shortly after.

Pick your poison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

And of course he's doing what's in his party's self-interest. You want him to do things against his own interest?

---

Yes, I expect him to do what's in the citizens best interest. If he's not interested in that, then he should never have ran for office.

[[I know, Naive.)

You can mock and dismiss misgivings as "conspiracy theories" all you want.

The legislation has been written.

This is not a hypothetical.

This is not one lunatic. This is being tried in several in several consistend and reliably blue states with current Republican control. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania being mentioned along with Michigan. Ohio may be another one.

This not new. This was mentioned by REPUBLICAN STRATEGISTS almost as soon as Romney lost.

All those other things you mentioned have NOTHING to do with rigging the vote in states where you can't win.

I really don't know what state you were living in for the last 4 years.

But this group doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. They killed and set that on fire back in Dec of 2012.

The other states have cooled on this nonsense.

But Michigan, being the shithole it is, might be the only ones stupid enough to actually pull this off. And they'll succeed.

And that's why I'm trying to eject like a bat out of hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brizee

You can mock and dismiss misgivings as "conspiracy theories" all you want.

The legislation has been written.

This is not a hypothetical.

This is not one lunatic. This is being tried in several in several consistend and reliably blue states with current Republican control. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania being mentioned along with Michigan. Ohio may be another one.

This not new. This was mentioned by REPUBLICAN STRATEGISTS almost as soon as Romney lost.

All those other things you mentioned have NOTHING to do with rigging the vote in states where you can't win.

I really don't know what state you were living in for the last 4 years.

But this group doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. They killed and set that on fire back in Dec of 2012.

The other states have cooled on this nonsense.

But Michigan, being the shithole it is, might be the only ones stupid enough to actually pull this off. And they'll succeed.

And that's why I'm trying to eject like a bat out of hell.

---

Interesting how this 14 month old article doesn't seem to bear out your doom and gloom message...

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...plitting-plan/

It's been quite some time since the 2012 elections... and there are still no additional states with a split electoral process... funny that... ;)

I have always thought that the "winner take all" wasn't quite right. I would prefer giving the electoral vote of the congressional district to the winner of the congressional district and the two senatorial electoral votes to the statewide winner.

I am against a straight popular vote. Can you imagine a nationwide recount? How many presidential elections have not delivered 50% plus to the popular vote winner? Do we want run-off elections?

Given the gerrymandering of congressional districts, I can't see anything but ill coming out of this idea. The U.S. House is still in Republican control because of gerrymandering, had the election used the pre-2010 districting the House would be in control of the Democrats. Republicans are trying everything they can to remain in power, because their policies are bad for the majority, and they know it.

[QUOTE=Wesley Mouch;431117]

Quote:

---

there’s a plan that would change the state’s electoral vote allocation in presidential elections from a winner-take-all system to votes by congressional districts[/q]

So we're unhappy with Snyder that he's advocating a measure to make presidential elections much more representative? Can anyone justify 'winner-take-all' as 'fair'?

And of course he's doing what's in his party's self-interest. You want him to do things against his own interest?

---

Yeah so the blue states will get partial electoral votes and the red states is winner take all. Are you so dense to see how rigged that would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliffy

Yeah so the blue states will get partial electoral votes and the red states is winner take all. Are you so dense to see how rigged that would be.

---

And winner takes all isn't rigged too? Dems so loud about right to vote without ID. But here they hate the idea of votes mattering. Each side likes what benefits them. Me? I like fair votes. I prefer proportional, but not direct. I prefer voter ID because fraud is so costly. And I detest gerrymandering. It's the biggest threat to democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

And winner takes all isn't rigged too? Dems so loud about right to vote without ID. But here they hate the idea of votes mattering. Each side likes what benefits them. Me? I like fair votes. I prefer proportional, but not direct. I prefer voter ID because fraud is so costly. And I detest gerrymandering. It's the biggest threat to democracy.

---

One problem is that if you are going to have a big push for a dictated number of "minority set aside" districts, you only achieve that by having some crazy looking districts in many parts of the country. Minority side asides by their very nature imply gerrymandering.

Count me in as one who detests blatant gerrymandering at all costs. What you now have is politicians choosing the voters instead of the other way around. Both sides like to have guaranteed districts where the winner of the primary is pretty much guaranteed the winner of the general election. They do this because they know primary voters tend to be more hard core believers than the ones that just vote in the general election, and this leads to more partisan winners that also know once they get in ar it is almost impossible to get voted out so they can now do whatever they want with a practically guaranteed job for life. So much for democracy. Those of you who hate Snyder have to at least admit this happens on both sides and is not a very good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

One problem is that if you are going to have a big push for a dictated number of "minority set aside" districts, you only achieve that by having some crazy looking districts in many parts of the country. Minority side asides by their very nature imply gerrymandering.

---

Voting is a bedrock principle of our democracy. There is never a good reason to gerrymander a district. Our system has many protections against majoritarian rule. It is a good goal to engage minorities. Its not good policy to do so by rigging the game with gerrymandered districts because of your political beliefs.