Posted on 01/18/2013 8:14:00 AM PST by Olog-hai
After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state’s popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party’s long-term political prospects. …
Democrats are outraged at the potential change. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Now THAT idea of yours, I actually understand. What could possibly the hold up with the pointy heads in the ongoing R Conference?
I’d throw right to work in there as another means of declawing the democrat vote fraud machine. Massive vote fraud ain’t cheap and cutting off a primary source of funding is a good way to go.
Why is it a bad idea?
Check out number 4. It addresses the point of the post.
That way if Detroit wants to cheat and produce 10 trillion votes for Obozo, they can and it won’t make a bit of difference. They’ll still pick up only the allotted number of electoral votes for the district.
Exactly why the GOP needs to push this in every state possible. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent urban enclaves outvoting and ruling over agricultural regions.
The Founders weren't stupid, they were seeking a balance that would avoid the city elite / peasant farmer dichotomy that civilization tends to devolve toward.
Because the leftist are already trying to go to a popular vote to allow just the sort of electoral corruption and high-jacking that now dominates our city’s to dominate presidential elections as well.
While this may benefit us in liberal dominated states it will kill us in Conservative States that still host high-jacked urban areas.
This is a two edge sword and the other edge is already well on its way to cutting our throats with their corruption.
Its the way we’re “supposed” to do our GOP primaries in Michigan but they never expected a Romney/Santorum tie so they had to change the rules in the middle of the night. Its a bit more complicated but basically Romney took 3000 more total votes but they divided congressional districts evenly and were supposed to split the two remaining at large delegates but the GOP couldn’t afford for Romney to tie in Michigan.
There would be no late night rule change in the general election between the parties.
“”I want my state’s electoral votes given according to number of congressional districts won.
That way if Detroit wants to cheat and produce 10 trillion votes for Obozo, they can and it won’t make a bit of difference. They’ll still pick up only the allotted number of electoral votes for the district.”
Exactly why the GOP needs to push this in every state possible. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent urban enclaves outvoting and ruling over agricultural regions.
“
I agree but do you really think bring it down to districting is a good idea? Suppose the corrupt democrats claim the State leglsators?
Presidential elections will go with the State leglsators, which on 2nd though might not be so bad.
I withdraw opposition, provided it follow the congressional district model.
“I’d settle for eying a viable conservative candidate.”
It doesn’t make any difference who the candidates are as long as the left controls elections and is allowed voting “irregularities” as they see fit. The Supreme Court, earlier this week, left in place a ruling from 1982 that disallows Republicans from challenging ANY voter fraud on the part of democrats.
The problem (and the reason it is able to be easily framed as a GOP ploy) is that the GOP is ONLY considering making this change in states that have trended Democratic in Presidential elections. No solid (or even marginal) red states are considering this. That makes this look like a transparently partisan move.
Yeah, that was the booby prize offered by our Quisling State GOP Chairman Rob Gleason after he blocked an electoral vote allocation by congressional district bill in 2011.
The ID bill passed and, of course, the Democrats had a hissy fit and sued. They found one fudgepacker judge to issue an injunction to suspend in just in time for the 2012 election.
Screw ém. The cheating party will scream no matter what. Nebraska has had congressional district voting since 1970 and Maine since 1990. Since BO picked up one Nebraska electoral vote in 2008, they have no grounds to challenge such a law.
Enact it. Enact voter ID as well. Let the DemonRATS play defense on multiple fronts. They have too much time to play offense now.
And, while they are at it, the GOP should put some teeth in encouraging this type of thing to spread by allocating GOP delegates more on the basis of rewarding states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP ticket in November, including those who do it by congressional district voting. It makes no damn sense to give a state like California, who will never deliver GOP electoral votes in November, more primary delegates than Texas, which reliably does.
Well said. Hopefully the GOP will get that premise out there in the public, that voter fraud won't be such a threat if big cities can't sway the entire state, that liberal strongholds in cities won't rule the country.
Come on, GOP, get out there and fight for the people for a change.
Since we were formed as the United STATES and not the United Electoral Votes or United Congressional Districts do you think that the Founders were seeking a balance more at the individual state level rather than what you mention (the city elite vs. peasant farmer)?
This crap is exactly why I have always been so vehemently opposed to the 17th anti constitutional amendment.
It was popular vote snake oil sold under the banner of empowerment and all it did was strip power from the states. Here in Michigan the GOP holds a huge majority across all 3 branches of state government but Detroit, Flint, and Ann Arbor elect Levin and Stabenow over and over again.
Prior to the 17th a senator who attempted to override the desires of the state could be removed by the legislature. Today the state wants one thing but “our” senators do exactly the opposite.
Its also important to note that the GOP holds all 3 branches in 24 states. The democrats hold all 3 in 13 states. The senate should resemble the nation but it doesn’t.
Anyone remember when democraps proposed this during the 2000s when Bush and Republicans were winning elections? It was “good idea” back then, but now that it has turned around, its a Republican play. The media in this country sucks.
This is a start. And keep the cities from overwhelming the entire state. Go for it.
ANd states with same day registration and crossover voting be the LAST to vote in the primaries.
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.