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?
Districts have to have equal numbers of people. One man one vote. They can’t move districts to thecities.
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.
Why not a President picked by the House? From among Senators and Governors?
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.
No, to heeell with picking senators as president....
Just govenors, that would ENSURE executive experiance!
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.
good point
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.
“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.
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).
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.
“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.
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”).
Yeah. I say let’s try it in PA. Not sure about OH/VA/FL, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
” 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.
“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.
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.