GOP Moves to Scrap Winner-Take-All Voting

Newser ^ | Jan 25, 2013 | Mark Russell

[Baynative]

Republicans in swing states that went for President Obama are pushing for a big change in how the Electoral College works, reports the Washington Post. The idea is to apportion electoral votes according to congressional district, instead of the winner-take-all system that most states employ. In Virginia, for example, the difference would be dramatic—Obama would have taken only four of the state's 13 electoral votes in 2012.

[Baynative]

The proportional allocation system is used only in Kansas and Maine. In this system two electoral votes (equaling Senators) go by majority and individual congressional districts allocate their vote according to the tally in that district only.

Pushing for a change state by state would probably be the smartest thing the GOP could do in order to keep all of our elections from being controlled by deep blue urban areas.

Prime examples from the 2012 election map can be seen in Pennsylvania where all 20 electoral votes went to Obama in a state with limited blue districts. Had those votes been allocated by district he would have only gotten 8.

I think this is a worth while cause to be taken up on a state by state basis.

[Dr. Sivana]

The proportional allocation system is used only in Kansas and Maine.

Make that Nebraska and Maine.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Does this mean across the nation?

So in every state, in every district, the votes are allocated representatively?

If so, I might go for this.

Has to be national though.

[Baynative]

Darn fingers... (and coffee)

[pepperdog]

I believe this is the only solution that will give the more rural areas any voice in their government. If this isn't done we'll be ruled by the mega cities. There are few, if any, common values, needs and beliefs between the cities and the country side. Only by equal representation of both will our nation survive. JMHO.

I wonder why it has taken so long for something so obvious to be considered?

[redgolum]

This just might bite you in the end.

I am thinking of states like Texas.

Still, it would make for a more interesting race.

[re_nortex]

Does this mean across the nation? So in every state, in every district, the votes are allocated representatively?
If so, I might go for this. Has to be national though.

I advocate the allocation at the county level:

The results are obvious as shown by the 2012 breakdown on a county-by-county basis. Real Americas, the producers, are country and suburban dwellers. The stinking corpses of urban areas are (mostly) filled with corrupt machine politicians, illegal aliens and leeches on welfare. The pro-America patriots residing outside of the cities have their votes negated by the unions and thugs who have a vice-grip on the urban vote. This is nothing short of disenfranchisement. A county-based allocation will fix this festering problem that favors DemonRATS.

[KoRn]

I tend to like the idea of Electoral votes being allocated based upon Congressional districts, but I haven’t given it A LOT of thought. I know one thing for certain, it would turn the presidential campaigns upside down, and election night coverage might be slowed a good bit. We would see candidates traveling to states they wouldn’t ordinarily go to which is a good thing.

Thank God, we’d finally see diminished, the idea of “Red STATES” and “Blue STATES”, because in many many states, a Congressional district could be taken, providing an Electoral Vote that would otherwise be unavailable.

[G Larry]

Actually, it’s the WORST thing Republicans could do.

It “may” have mattered ONLY in this last election, which is a really bad frame of reference for making this far reaching change.

[jjotto]

County level would require constitutional amendment.

[Viennacon]

Is there any chance this could actually happen? This would destroy Democrats. Not to worry however. Obama can claim the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters, then issue an executive order to prevent it.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Baynative.

In Virginia, for example, the difference would be dramatic -- Obama would have taken only four of the state's 13 electoral votes in 2012.

This won't be necessary, Hillary et al called for the elimination of the Electoral College after Gore failed to steal the 2000 election.

[srmorton]

I think the best reason to consider this option is that it would make it very difficult for the Democrats to steal a presidential election through voter fraud.

[RegulatorCountry]

People might want to take a look at Democrat electoral votes this would free up instead of just Republican ones. Looks like giving control to the cities, to me. That cannot be good long term.

[RIghtwardHo]

Agreed. Though I think the EC should be abolished. I don’t like the “some states do, some states don’t” aspect of this. I also don’t think the GOP appreciates that huge backlash this will cause.

Just run and promote good, Conservative candidates. This smacks of desperation and, probably, has equal protection issues.

Can’t we just have good candidates?

[SunkenCiv]

California and New York wouldn’t be solid Blue every single presidential election; that change would by itself tip the scale back away from the Demagogic Party, no matter how large their army of the undead got.

[re_nortex]

County level would require constitutional amendment.

If it destroys the scourge of liberalism, then it should be done. America faces an existential peril because of the disproportionate power at the ballot box of illegal aliens, union goons and welfare queens. As wrong as Mitt Romney was on so many things, he was on target with his remarks about the 47%.

It's time to take America back and if a constitutional amendment is the mechanism to make it happen, then so be it. On the other hand, couldn't the states simply award the full slate electoral votes based on the winner of the majority of counties? If so, the battleground of Ohio would have clearly -- and massively -- repudiated Obama in 2012:

[Starstruck]

States can flip a coin to determine their electorates if they want.

[jsanders2001]

I think that the county map says it all as to how America felt overall about his highness in power. To look at it you’d think HTH did he win. Then you remember he worked as an activist for ACORN for 10 years learning how to rig elections and then it all makes sense.

[cripplecreek]

I'm for it. If Detroit wants to cheat and produce a billion votes, let em, they'll still only get the votes allocated.

[jjotto]

Awarding EVs based on majority of counties would violate the ‘one man, one vote’ principle that the SC invented in the ‘60s. No foreseeable court will change that.

Awarding EVs based on congressional districts is OK because CD populations are roughly equal.

Good luck with getting 38 states on that amendment.

[mike_9958]

“It “may” have mattered ONLY in this last election, which is a really bad frame of reference for making this far reaching change.”

Explain yourself - the previous election went the same way. This makes sense to me as a general rule. The presidential election would basically follow the congressional one. It also would make the races much harder to predict.

[jarwulf]

Different states are moving in different directions depending upon on their politics. The ones where eliminating WTA would benefit conservatives the most are Dim states with sizeable Repub minorities. So places like California despite professing to hate the Electoral College will not do this to avoid helping enfranchise Republicans and noncity voters.

[who knows what evil?]

Repeal the 17th. This is why many Republicans in states with large cities have no voice in the Senate.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Actually, it’s the WORST thing Republicans could do.”

Unequivocally yes. Apportionment by CD is one thing. Apportionment by popular vote, quite another.

[TYVets]

Actually, it’s the WORST thing Republicans could do.

Agreed

I "might" make for a short term gain but in the long run defiantly a bad move.

[Baynative]

"Obama can claim the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters..."

I think that's a great argument in our favor. In many states elections are controlled by one or two urban areas while the rest of the state is disenfranchised. Washington, where I live in an example of this. It was considered a deep blue state with 12 votes going to Obama in a winner take all contest when in actuality only 4 congressional districts were solid blue, two were pretty close and 6 were red. In a proportional allocation those 6 red votes would have gone to Romney. Even though those districts vote republican, many people don't bother to turn out because they know we are controlled by three urban counties and most of the state votes don't matter, except for local offices.

[Baynative]

Texas has 38 electoral votes. I haven't tracked their returns, but I'd imagine there would have been at least ten votes going to Obama from Houston, Austin and heavy latino areas along the border.

One thing I've found is that getting a pictorial map of the district allocation is almost impossible. I have to go to each state returns and then add votes myself. Could it be the media would like to keep these numbers as quiet as possible? I think so since it's dems who are pushing to do away with the electoral college and decide all elections by popular vote.

[Sacajaweau]

The Dems have proven that pure demographics (blacks and hispanics) can win an election....good evidence of "how to beat the electoral college".

Yes, it should be national.

[Jacquerie]

Though I think the EC should be abolished.

What would you replace it with?

[jch10]

The Dems won’t go for this.....they would lose consistently.

[rarestia]

I tend to agree with you Larry. Our Founder’s brilliance is in everything they implemented. The changes made to our founding principles such as the 17th amendment are why we are in the position we’re in now.

Leave the electoral college alone but push for ratification of Article The First (Google it), and watch the nation turn around in just one election cycle! Pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment would be helpful as well.

Finally, return to the founding principles, call for a special session of Congress to review the entirety of the US Code and repeal laws that are unconstitutional by the original intent of our nation’s founding documents, and force the closure of unconstitutional executive branch offices (I.e. DoE, EPA, ATF, and the NLRB), and we will be in a much better place.

Pie in the sky, I know, but someone has to say it.

[sefarkas]

Actually, it’s the WORST thing Republicans could do.

How did the Founding Fathers know they would one day save America from having the mentally disturbed Al Gore as POTUS? As long as I live, I will always remember how the Electoral College system saved us.

All the analysis about advantage, different outcomes assumes that the candidates and their campaigns would deploy time and resources as they do now. New rules for allocating electors would change the emphasis. Someone thinking that Romney would have won on a Congressional District based Electoral College are akin to someone using the rules of Hearts to play Spades.

[cripplecreek]

In many states elections are controlled by one or two urban areas while the rest of the state is disenfranchised.

The 17th amendment is a perfect example of that. Michigan is dominated by republicans but Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Flint consistently elect Stupidcow and Lenin. It was popular vote snake oil sold under the banner of empowerment and delivered exactly the opposite.

[rarestia]

Repeal the 17th. This is why many Republicans in states with large cities have no voice in the Senate.<\i>

Completely agree! Also ratify Article the First.

[cripplecreek]

Leave the electoral college

Nobody is even proposing changing the electoral college. The states have always had the power to allocate their electoral votes as they saw fit.

[Baynative]

"Has to be national though."

It's up to individual states. Like I said there are currently two that allocate proportionally at present. Look at what goes on in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio or Washington where the entire state is controlled by a congested urban area where fraudulent voting by unions and government dependents is the norm. Those states might see a much different outcome if all their rural voters had a voice.

Note, also, that the DNC is working to end the electoral college. Any idea why?

[RightGeek]

The good news is that it puts a firewall around all the vote fraud plagued inner cities. The bad news is that it won’t get enacted in a state unless the Republicans control the governor’s office and the legislature.

[rarestia]

There was more to my post than that first part. I said to leave it alone, not just to leave it.

[jjotto]

http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m542/swolf318/USCongressionalDistrictsbyPresidentialElection2008small.png

http://www.theliberaloc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/electoral-votes-by-cd-map-4_1.png

[Celtic Conservative]

yep, time to end the tyranny of wayne county.

CC

[cripplecreek]

The bad news is that it won’t get enacted in a state unless the Republicans control the governor’s office and the legislature.

The good news is that 24 states have 3 branch GOP majorities. (Democrats have 13)

[Sacajaweau]

The concept of the Electoral college is still correct...the problem is too many “I don’t wanna work” gimmee folks.

[PapaBear3625]

Actually, it’s the WORST thing Republicans could do. It “may” have mattered ONLY in this last election, which is a really bad frame of reference for making this far reaching change.

I disagree. What turns many states into "Blue" states is high Dem voting in major cities (often accompanied with vote fraud). Doing this would mean that the Dems would only get the electoral votes of the big cities' congressional districts, and the rest of the state would likely go R.

[cripplecreek]

Allocating the electoral votes by district within a state removes the incentive to cheat in the areas where its common. Democrats, unions, etc will figure out pretty quickly that wasting money on vote fraud is a pure loser.

[PubliusMM]

I support this notion for Ohio, and any other state that’s interested.
The down side of this approach will the constant attempts a gerrymandering every congressional district every time there is a change in the State leadership roles.
That I can live with, for now. At least it gets my voice back on a level playing field with the libtard Buckeyes who threw the state to Zero and the 0bamunists in November.

Interestingly, I broached the subject to my State Rep and he tells me it’s a Federal issue. I sent it to my Congresscritter and he tells me it’s a State issue.

Gotta luv the buck-passin’

[TLI]

I advocate the allocation at the county level:

Absolutly.

Post this out to all sources.

One County, One Vote It's Fair!

Watch the donks squeal!

Actually we should put out a lot of mind-benders aimed directly at the communist agenda donks.

It will keep their sticky little fingers busy on the keyboards and dilute their efforts to communize this Republic..

.

[Nifster]

oh goodie....the repubs are looking more and more like the dims

[Nifster]

And trust me when I say that ANY changes to the electoral college will in fact gut what is left of our republic. The left has been pushing hard for this approach for a long time....hmmm I wonder why....BECAUSE they really want a democracy where the popular vote is all that counts.

Our founders were wise in how they set elections up we ought to honor.

[Redmen4ever]

The Republicans can (and should) make this national in the following way:

1. Do this in all the battleground states they control (if they had done this for the 2012 election - FL, IA, MI, OH, PA, VA and WI - they would have elected Mitt). At least, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (winning Florida, where we came very close, plus a share of those three state, would do the trick; then, nominate Rubio for ‘16).

2. And propose a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to require ALL states to apportion their EVs this way. Enough Democrats would join us, to eliminate the advantage we’d gain by selectively applying the rule.

3. Even clean up a few things:

3a. Eliminate “Electors.”

3b. Have the Congress, in the event that no slate of candidates receives a majority of the EV, elect the slate of candidates in a joint session with each Senator and Representative casting one vote, for one of the two slates receiving the most EVs.

3c. Give DC, as long as what remains of it isn’t retroceded to Maryland, one Congressman, and have its people participate with Maryland in Senate and Presidential elections.

This total package would, right now, give the Republicans a slight advantage, which we would keep IF we keep control of a large majority of the state governments, which is the way it should be.