The Real Electoral College Reform

American Thinker ^ | November 29, 2016 | Bruce Walker

[fieldmarshaldj]

I don’t know the numbers offhand and can’t seem to find them from another source. I’m surprised OurCampaigns doesn’t have them. I presumed it was Jerome Chaffee, the GOP incumbent, who ran again in 1874, but I can’t find a confirmation in his biography that he ran. I checked a more extensive bio of Sen. Thomas Patterson, but no mention of his opponent (it did mention he worked hard to secure statehood - the presumption was that the Dems had a shot at winning the state).

I think there was a general feeling leading up to the 1876 election that the Dems had a leg up and that it was time for a change (add in the restoration of some of the Southern states). It had been 20 years since they had won the Presidency. Of course, this turned out to be likely the most fraudulent election in the history of the Republic, with chicanery on both sides (so much so that I’m not sure who the legit winner was). Hayes, of course, had to cut that deal to end Reconstruction, enacting Tilden’s (and the Dems) central cause, so it was a pyrrhic victory for the GOP and an epic loss for Blacks counting on their rights and enfranchisement being protected.

[Impy]

I’ve read it speculated that if all Blacks were allowed to vote in the neo-conderate states, Hayes probably/maybe wins the popular vote (3 point margin for Tilden, bigger than Shillery’s fake margin), picks up MS, holds LA and SC, but supposedly loses a fair election in Florida.

MS (8 electors) was bigger than FL (4) (and CO (3) combined) at the time, so Hayes, according to that. Interesting that Tilden chose to retire when he could have walked into the rat nomination in 1880.

CE Hugues may have also won the popular vote in 1916 if Blacks in the South were allowed to vote Republican, not to mention Blaine in ‘84 and Harrison in ‘92. Maybe leaving only Wilson’s 1912 plurality as the only dem win between Buchanan and FDR.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Tilden was apparently the front runner for 1880, but those “Cipher Dispatches” harmed his reputation and caused him to withdraw. Enough time had passed by 1884 that he might’ve mounted a successful campaign, but his health was on the decline and he was an “old” 70 (he died in 1886). I wonder if Cleveland would’ve run had Tilden stepped up to do so.

[cynwoody]

I’m not sure that congressional districts are the answer though. There are issues of gerrymandering and judicial interference.

We're already coping with the gerrymandering problem.

Even so, 15 of California's 53 reps are Republican. Under a system awarding electoral votes by CD, Trump would probably have received 15 of California's 55 electoral votes.

[cynwoody]

The article writers idea seems to be to have state legislators choose the electors. That won't happen either. He's under a lot of illusions about the character of state legislators. Why would they all of a sudden step up and become infinitely wise and courageous philosopher kings entitled to chose our leaders for us?

I'm in Massachusetts, where state legislators have bad breath.

[cynwoody]

The solution of switching to 1 vote per Congressional district and 2 per statewide winner representing the Senate sounds good in this day and age EXCEPT FOR the nightmare of gerrymandering the rats would inflict.

Since changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, why not include language regulating the shape of a congressional district? I'm not a topologist, but there should be a way to write language disallowing a district that looks like a salamander. E.g., a district must be contiguous and have a width to height ratio within certain limits. And, of course, the population within each district must be roughly equal.

Oh, and while we're at it, non-citizen population should not count for purposes of apportionment.