Legislation introduced to "split" New Jersey's Electoral votes.

The Star Ledger (Newark) | September 28, 2004

[XRdsRev]

The "ACTION IN TRENTON" section of the Newark Star Ledger reports that State Senator Joseph Kyrillos (R - Monmouth County), introduced legislation yesterday to split New Jersey's Electoral votes.

If passed, New Jersey's current "winner take all" system would be replaced by a system where each of the states 13 Congressional districts would pick their own electors and 2 "at large" electors would be apportioned by the statewide popular vote.

This system would almost guarantee that Republicans would glean a minimum of 5 electoral votes from the Garden State regardless of the overall state outcome.

[XRdsRev]

Unlikely that this will pass now but it certainly gives our state democrats heartburn, to even have to consider this proposal.

[bahblahbah]

I actually think this is the way electorial votes should be divided up. Every district gets their own elector, with the state sending in 2 electors for whoever wins the whole state. But that might be a lot of recounts on close elections.

[RockinRight]

Yes but you'd only recount congressional districts not whole states. This is much better than the Colorado proposal to spilt by popular vote.

[Pondman88]

Dumb idea!!!!

[Huck]

I'm in NJ's 5th district. Scott Garrett country. We'd definitely deliver for GWB.

[dead]

I don't feel the need to make my state a former electoral battleground.

Splitting the votes will make us a new major non-player, as critical to the election as Hawaii.

[XRdsRev]

Right now, New Jersey's Congressional districts break down as follows....

7 - Democrat
6 - Republican

[Nataku X]

If this had been implemented country-wide Bush's margin would have been much larger in 2000. The 'Rats are congregatated in small districts while Republicans are spread out.

[frog_jerk_2004]

Even though it drives me crazy that we throw away our 15 electoral votes to the DIMs almost every year, and that I live in Republican Monmouth County, its a bad idea. If we ever force most of the DIMs out of the state we wont be able to go back to the way the electors were awarded without looking like hypocrites.

[Gorjus]

I actually think this is the way electorial votes should be divided up.

At the first level, I'd agree. It guarantees that every State would be a "battleground" State, because there will be a chance to pick up at least a few electors in states where there was no chance at all before. It would get the politicians to focus on the entire country.

But at the next level, that's a real problem. It would mean that minor candidates would get a few electors as well, and (assuming most of the States did the same) it would mean no single candidate would get a majority of electors - and therefore the House of Representatives would select the President. Not a good thing, in my opinion.

[XRdsRev]

Even with the "winner take all" system, minor candidates have accrued substantial electoral votes. The Presidential election of 1860 is an example.

Abraham Lincoln - Hannibal Hamlin (Republican)
180 electoral votes - 1,865,593 popular votes

Stephen Douglas - Herschel Johnson (Northern Democrat)
12 electoral votes - 1,382,713 popular votes

John Breckinridge - Joseph Lane (Southern Democrat)
72 electoral votes - 848,356 popular votes

John Bell - Edward Everett (Constituional Union)
39 electoral votes - 592, 906 popular votes

[OhMike]

I agree. Dumb idea. If you apply this to all states, we wind up with a system not much different than picking a President through the popular vote. The Founding Fathers were smart. They knew to allow the smaller states a voice through the Electoral College. Don't mess with that.

[kevkrom]

I actually think this is the way electorial votes should be divided up. Every district gets their own elector, with the state sending in 2 electors for whoever wins the whole state. But that might be a lot of recounts on close elections.

I actually agree with you, with the exception of the recounts -- they would be far more localized, and a little bit of monkeying around would only affect 1 EV, rather than an entire state's worth.

For the record, though, if this system had been in place since 1960, only twice would the result have changed... Nixon would have beat Kennedy in 1960, and Ford/Carter would have tied in 1976.

[atomicpossum]

Mmmmmmmmmm.....Democrat sauce makes wonderful Republican gravy. Tee-hee!

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

If any state were to pass a law splitting their electoral votes, I would immediately file a lawsuit in federal court claiming violation of equal protection laws. Why should republicans in california not be counted just because we are the minority here?

[kevkrom]

If you apply this to all states, we wind up with a system not much different than picking a President through the popular vote

I strongly disagree. Under a popular vote system, basically only the major cities would be represented. With a Congressional-district system, it actually goes further the other way, making sure the winning candidate has broad-based support across the country.

As for the smaller states, look at it this way... winning the lone district in small states like Rhode Island or Wyoming automatically carries a 2 EV bonus for winning the state -- I think this approach would actually give smaller states more clout, not less, if there was any difference. Larger states, once winner-takes-all is dispensed with, would actually be less important.

[raptor29]

"Don't mess with that".

I agree, and frankly, I don't see how any of these ballot initiatives could be ruled constitutional, even if they do pass. They serve to morph the electoral college process into one where ultimately, the popular vote would rule, which was not what the Founding Fathers put in place. The other thing is, how come the citizens from every state don't get a say in any of this, given it's impact on all the other states?

[azcap]

Well partner you better get to suing because 2 states already do.

[Lurking2Long]

Agreed...I have not looked at the system the way the Founders set it up...how much leeway is there?

[Lurking2Long]

Have their systems been subject to court challenges that you are aware of?