Posted on 11/21/2012 5:49:15 PM PST by ReaganÜberAlles
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?
bkmk
bkmk
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.
And another opinion....
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.
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.
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.
Will never happen.
Elections are fixed in this country. There is no going back.
These ideas of electoral college and fair elections are fallacy.
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.
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.
Then the Dims would move most of the districts into the cities, in the interest of fairness, and lock things up even tighter.
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.
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.
The Dims have to win the governorships and state legislatures to do that. They are not doing so well in that department.
The White House has nothing to do with redistricting in the states. Who controls the state legislature controls the gerrymandering.
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).
This doesn't need to (and constitutionally possibly can't) be done at the federal level.
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.