Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Awarding Electoral Votes by Congressional District (vanity)
11/21/2012 | self

Posted on 11/21/2012 5:49:15 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles

I propose that we award Electoral Votes by Congressional District with the winner of each state receiving two additional EVs.

As can be seen at the links below this change would negate the Liberals advantage in CA & NY (where more than Obama's ENTIRE pop vote margin came from in 2012) and would have resulted in McCain beating Obama in 2008 and Romney winning in 2012.

http://www.polidata.org/prcd/

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Thoughts?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: congressional; district; electoral; vanity

1 posted on 11/21/2012 5:49:22 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

bkmk


2 posted on 11/21/2012 5:53:52 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

bkmk


3 posted on 11/21/2012 5:53:56 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

The Dems want to do away with the electoral college. Every time the side who loses wants to change the election. Keep it the way it is. We have won many times. We have lost a few. We do not need to change the way the election is done.


4 posted on 11/21/2012 5:55:45 PM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

And another opinion....

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/awarding-presidential-electors-by-congressional-district-wrong-for-california-wrong-for-the-nation


5 posted on 11/21/2012 5:57:34 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

I just posted similar thoughts on another topic.

I once gave states allocating proportional electoral votes by congressional district short shrift. Now I think it is the only way to fight big city corruption and 120% voting tallies.

If you look at the red blue map of this country, red lands far exceed the blue coastal areas and major cities. We can never win all of California’s electoral votes, but we can take a chunk under a proportional system.

We have 30 GOP governors. They should be looking at an electoral college proportional voting system to fight against demorat vote stealing.

With a proportional system Philadelphia can vote 200% of their registered voters; they will only win Philadelphia.

I would like Barone to do a study. I’m sure we can take more electoral votes from them in such a system than they can take from us.


6 posted on 11/21/2012 6:03:45 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

The proposal I outlined is more fair and more true to the republican form of governance. Less “mob mentality” than the present system or election by direct popular vote.


7 posted on 11/21/2012 6:04:41 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

The proposal I outlined is more fair and more true to the republican form of governance. Less “mob mentality” than the present system or election by direct popular vote.


8 posted on 11/21/2012 6:05:05 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Will never happen.

Elections are fixed in this country. There is no going back.

These ideas of electoral college and fair elections are fallacy.


9 posted on 11/21/2012 6:05:23 PM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

Only if we do away with gerrymandering, which is never going to happen. Gerrymandered districts are one reason that Congressional incumbents are re-elected at such a high rate (and, therefore, that once a party takes control of the House, that party tends to stay in control for at least a few cycles). Likewise, awarding electoral votes by CD may make it more difficult to vote out an incumbent President.

Also, especially given the gerrymandered districts that exist, this method would make it extremely likely that the party in the White House would nearly always also control the House.

Even though this approach would likely benefit the GOP in the short term, in the long term, I think it would be bad for the country.


10 posted on 11/21/2012 6:06:41 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

This is well within the power of any state to enact. Two already do so. It may be the only way to save the Republic.


11 posted on 11/21/2012 6:08:48 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("Our president ... makes big speeches packed full of little ideas" Charles C. W. Cooke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

The 17th Amendment should be repealed also.

http://repeal17now.org/


12 posted on 11/21/2012 6:09:20 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

Then the Dims would move most of the districts into the cities, in the interest of fairness, and lock things up even tighter.


13 posted on 11/21/2012 6:11:12 PM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

After reading the Michigan Law Review, it is obvious that the author Sam Hirsch is against it because changing the Electoral College to proportional voting would favor the republicans.

Of course he would be against it.


14 posted on 11/21/2012 6:12:38 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I like the idea of awarding them by district. Its up to the individual states but I wouldn’t mind changing it here.

As it is now, most of the states are effectively doing it by popular vote within states making fraud in a few areas more effective. If you do it by district, the fraud prone areas could commit fraud to their heart’s content but they could only win the district and wouldn’t be able to overcome the other districts.


15 posted on 11/21/2012 6:14:37 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

The Dims have to win the governorships and state legislatures to do that. They are not doing so well in that department.


16 posted on 11/21/2012 6:16:03 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
Then the Dims would move most of the districts into the cities, in the interest of fairness, and lock things up even tighter.

I don't see how they could. The districts are made up of a predetermined number of people. That's why urban districts ae small land areas and rural districts are large.
17 posted on 11/21/2012 6:17:43 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

The White House has nothing to do with redistricting in the states. Who controls the state legislature controls the gerrymandering.


18 posted on 11/21/2012 6:19:24 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

If only and all states with R governors pass this, it will hurt us; it needs to either be be just blue states with red state leadership (feasible) or all states (not feasible).


19 posted on 11/21/2012 6:21:18 PM PST by 92nina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles
Any state that wishes to is free to do just that. Maine and Nebraska already do.

This doesn't need to (and constitutionally possibly can't) be done at the federal level.

20 posted on 11/21/2012 6:22:02 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Districts have to have equal numbers of people. One man one vote. They can’t move districts to thecities.


21 posted on 11/21/2012 6:22:13 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

I didn’t say the White House has anything to do with gerrymandering. I said that, if EVs were awarded by Congressional districts, then the sane incumbent stagnation that historically affected Congress would also affect the Electoral College (and thus the Presidency), by party, at least, due to Presidential term limits.


22 posted on 11/21/2012 6:31:13 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

Why not a President picked by the House? From among Senators and Governors?


23 posted on 11/21/2012 6:32:04 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

No, they could not simply ‘move’ districts to the cities. What they could do, however, is rearrange the districts so that there are a whole bunch of districts that have both urban and suburban (maybe rural, too) parts. In states controlled by Dems, these districts may be set up in such a way that they have populations that are 60-40 urban-nonurban. The opposite in states controlled by the GOP.


24 posted on 11/21/2012 6:34:55 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

No, to heeell with picking senators as president....

Just govenors, that would ENSURE executive experiance!


25 posted on 11/21/2012 6:41:05 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

Yes, I have to agree with your point, and I realized that.
Ideally, it would work best if all states changed the apportionment of electoral votes, but that is not going to happen.

On the other hand, republicans are currently in control of what are usually regarded as blue states such as Pennsylvania. We got Ohio too. And we have Virginia. And Florida. The advantage is obvious.

It is quite possible that states will go back and forth on how they allocate the electoral votes depending on the party in power. If we have control of a blue state why not go for it? We have to take every advantage we can get against the cheaters.

The odds of us periodically controlling a blue state are infinitely better than a red state going blue.


26 posted on 11/21/2012 6:42:50 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

good point


27 posted on 11/21/2012 6:43:08 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Chances of us winning a state controlled by dims no matter how they gerrymander their districts are still super slim.

I’ll take that 40%. Sure beats zero.


28 posted on 11/21/2012 6:47:08 PM PST by A'elian' nation (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“The Dems want to do away with the electoral college. Every time the side who loses wants to change the election. Keep it the way it is. We have won many times. We have lost a few. We do not need to change the way the election is done.”

Yes, we do.

Within 25-30 years Texas is going to “turn blue” due to changing demographics. Right now, today, 70% or more of the babies born in Texas hospitals are to Hispanic women, both legal and illegal (probably MANY to illegals). No, the newcomers can’t vote today. But within a generation and a half, they are going to change Texas’ politics forever.

When that happens, Texas’ 38 electoral votes will “tip” to the democrats under the current “winner-take-all” system. And Republicans will be shut out of the presidential contest for good. It has already happened in California, and it is happening now in New Mexico (where Hispanics are now the largest demographic group).

However, if Texas’ electoral votes were awarded by Congressional district, the demographic changes would be offset. The ‘rats would get some areas, but not all of the electoral votes.

Going to a “proportionally-awarded” system of EV’s would work for us in other states, as well. I believe we’d see pickups in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, perhaps even Iowa, certainly Virginia (which has now tipped to the blue side). It would tighten up the “EV vote race” and actually give Republicans an advantage, again.

You were correct in your assertion that the Electoral College, up ‘till now, has worked to protect the influence of conservatives in presidential elections. But if things keep going the way they’re going now, in not too many more years that system is going to turn against us, and shut conservatism out of presidential politics for all time.


29 posted on 11/21/2012 6:54:15 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

First, there needs to be an investigation of the zero-vote districts in the inner cities of the country. If a few people can be identified, even secretly, in these districts as voting for Romney, it’s Katy bar the door.

Second, nationwide implementation of the Maine-Nebraska method is relatively easy.

A. Republican controlled state governments in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin convert to the Maine-Nebraska method. They can do this on their own. These states lean Democratic. We might win them in an election we’d win anyway. But, we lose them in the close elections.

We could do this in Florida, Ohio and Virginia also, even though we would win these states in an even-up election.

With a share of the EVs from these states plus the Romney states, we’d win even if we’re down 2 or 3 points in the popular vote. Maybe even 4 or 5 points down.

The Democrats might scream bloody murder, but there’s nothing they could do about it. They don’t control any Red state where they could do to us what we could do to them. (They do control West Virginia, but we win statewide and all the EVs in any close election.)

To negate the advantage of the Republicans, the Congress could refer a Constitutional Amendment to the states to shift all the states to the Maine-Nebraska method. I actually think that would be fair. Our people could support the Amendment in return for something like repeal of their support of our version of the budget deal (which uses tax reform instead of tax increases to raise revenue).


30 posted on 11/21/2012 6:54:31 PM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles

How about we set up an electoral college in each state with one vote per county. This college would elect federal senators from the state. This can be done by the states and would level the playing field between rural areas and urban centers. In essence this method will prevent urban centers from enslaving other people in the state. And provide all people in the state representation. Not just the takers.


31 posted on 11/21/2012 7:01:26 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

“It is quite possible that states will go back and forth on how they allocate the electoral votes depending on the party in power.”

While that may be fine (and advantageous to the GOP) in the short term, I think many people (on both sides) would view this blatant partisan manipulation of the Electoral College negatively. It would give plenty of ammo (in terms of popular support) to the people who advocate ending the Electoral College entirely.


32 posted on 11/21/2012 7:01:45 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

The legislatures of the several states have the power to decide how electors from the state are chosen: thus the by-congressional-district-plus-two-to-the-statewide-winner system in Maine and Nebraska.

There are “blue states” that Obama carried both times that have GOP governors and GOP-controlled state legislatures (PA and OH for instance). This can be done — should have been done before this election — in those states. CA and NY are lost causes (unless maybe we can get it through on one of CA’s famous Propositions — after all, CA voted down “gay marriage”).


33 posted on 11/21/2012 7:39:39 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

Yeah. I say let’s try it in PA. Not sure about OH/VA/FL, though.


34 posted on 11/21/2012 7:50:19 PM PST by 92nina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
I would modify the Maine/Nebraska system as follows:

First allocate the Congressional district EVs. As for the two Senatorial ones, any candidate receiving 40% or more of a state's popular vote receives one EV, any candidate receiving 60% or more of a state's popular vote would receive both EVs, otherwise they would be split between the top two candidates. I think that this system would most closely mimic the popular vote without having to resort to fractional EVs. Candidates would have to campaign in almost all states instead of just in a few "battleground" states.

35 posted on 11/21/2012 8:32:53 PM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
I would modify the Maine/Nebraska system as follows:

First allocate the Congressional district EVs. As for the two Senatorial ones, any candidate receiving 40% or more of a state's popular vote receives one EV, any candidate receiving 60% or more of a state's popular vote would receive both EVs, otherwise they would be split between the top two candidates. I think that this system would most closely mimic the popular vote without having to resort to fractional EVs. Candidates would have to campaign in almost all states instead of just in a few "battleground" states.

36 posted on 11/21/2012 8:33:07 PM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: reg45

With regard to the at-large EVs: I see your point. I have no problem with it one way or the other. Both to the first place finisher in the statewide popular vote receives 60 percent of the vote, and otherwise one to each of the first and second place finishers.

The nationwide adoption of the Maine-Nebraska method has many advantages. Most immediately, it avoids the problem of “rotten boroughs,” such as our inner cities have become. There would actually be no reason to stuff the ballot in districts you’re going to win anyway, well, except to influence the award of the at-large EVs. In addition, it ties the President a little bit to the U.S. Congress, at least initially. This could help mitigate the impasse we have had, through most of our history, with divided government.

In the spirit of this reform of the Electoral College, we should amend the process by which the President and Vice President are elected if no ticket receives a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. From the current system (which was in place prior to the adoption of the 12th Amendment) to: receiving a simple majority of those present and voting at a joint session of the House and Senate, each member of each chamber casting one vote.


37 posted on 11/21/2012 9:40:23 PM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Reagan√úberAlles; All

I live in MD [forgive me]. After my state passed the law to join the National Popular Vote [NPV] Compact, I researched the electoral process extensively.

Don’t worry, the NPV Compact does not become effective unless enough states with 270 electoral votes also join. Additionally, the NPV could be constitutionally defective - but cannot be tested in court unless it is applied.

Anyway, the better solutions to the current winner-take-all approach that is in effect in 48 states are:

Proportional Allocation [PA, which is only marginally better]and Congressional District Apportionment [CDA, which is the best method].

CDA follows the method by which we elect our national government. Local voters from individual districts select their Representatives, while the voters of the State [as a whole] elect the Senators. CDA grants one electoral vote to the winner of each individual district and puts each local electoral vote on an equal footing since it allows the voters within a given district to decide who gets their electoral vote. It also acknowledges the overall will of the state by granting a two electoral “bonus” to the winner of the popular vote of the state.

CDA also lessens the effect of election fraud since the electoral votes are not awarded as a lump sum. Fraud [that would tip a majority of votes of a district] would have to be committed in each district in order to gain the electoral votes of all the districts. Of course, any fraud could tip the balance of the state-wide total, BUT it could ONLY affect the award of two electoral votes. That cannot be helped ...

Additionally, recounts would only be necessary in districts that were very close, and on a state-wide level only if the popular vote were very close.


38 posted on 11/21/2012 9:59:47 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

” In addition, it ties the President a little bit to the U.S. Congress, at least initially. This could help mitigate the impasse we have had, through most of our history, with divided government.”

Yes, it would tie the President a little bit to the House. That’s a BAD thing, though. The “impasse we have had” historically was by design. Separation of powers and such.


39 posted on 11/22/2012 3:01:11 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

“We could do this in Florida, Ohio and Virginia also, even though we would win these states in an even-up election.”

My reply is coming in late in the thread, but I’ll post it anyway.

I think you err in your supposition that we can continue to win the above states in “even-up” elections.

All three of the above are reaching “the tipping point”. They are going to flop over from being [former] red states to “leans blue” or perhaps even “solid blue”.

If a candidate as leftist as is Obama could win them TWICE, after four years as disastrous as the last four have been, then a more palatable ‘rat candidate should have them in his/her pocket in the years to come.

If all three of these states had been on the “proportional electoral vote” system prior to the election, our side would have been much more competitive. This doesn’t mean we would have been guaranteed a win in the Electoral College — but the odds would have have been much less in the ‘rats’ favor.

The right needs something to counteract the “National Popular Vote” push by the left. Just saying “the existing system works” will not be enough. Going to a “proportional electoral vote” system would be a good “foil” against NPV by the left.

However, I’m a realist. The odds of making this change are pretty much against us. The left _knows_ the implications of switching to a proportional EV system in blue states — they would lose power, and will do what it takes to preserve winner-take-all in those states.

No matter how we slice it, the future looks less than bright for conservatives on the national scale. I wish this weren’t so, but that’s the way I see things.


40 posted on 11/22/2012 8:20:47 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

The margins in Ohio and Virginia were about the same as the nationwide margin. The margin in Florida less. (We’re not in control of the process in Colorado, but the margin there was similar to the nationwide margin.)

If you’re point is that the country leans blue, well doesn’t it alway when the other side wins. The permanent majorities sometimes are rather permanent (as in the Republican advantage in Presidential from 1860 to 1928, and the Democratic advantage in Congress from 1932 to 1996). But, we’d normally expect political parties to shift around on issues so as to be competitive.

On the other hand, if you’re saying that the U.S. is becoming a welfare nation, so that even the Republicans have to cut deals (e.g., with voters over 55), yes, you may be right, and the country - which is headed down the tubes - may have to crash and burn before it can be re-constructed. The coming hyperinflation may be just the enema this country needs.

To paraphrase de Toqueville, America is no longer great because it is no longer good. Even though the country is no longer among the best countries in the world, it is still worth fighting for. We can still turn this country around. But, ask me whether this country is worth fighting for in four years.


41 posted on 11/22/2012 9:05:48 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

There just aren’t that many “city people” in Pennsylvania, for example to have each CD be 60 % urban.

They can’t run every dictrict through Philly.


42 posted on 11/22/2012 9:39:02 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson