Skip to comments.
Two lawmakers want to split state's electoral votes by House district
AP ^
| 12/1/4
Posted on 12/01/2004 6:14:40 PM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: Whitehawk
Congressional districts are supposed to encompass a nearly equal number of people. Assignment of one elector per congressional district gives the most even-handed approach. Counties have little to do with population. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice for a county with 3 million people to have the same voting power as a county with 30,000. Population densities vary that much within the boundaries of "counties". The congressional district apportionment is re-adjusted every 10 years after the census.
41
posted on
12/01/2004 6:49:11 PM PST
by
Myrddin
To: Cicero
Algore might have been the President of the US in 2000 had this scenario been allowed to play out in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
42
posted on
12/01/2004 6:50:29 PM PST
by
Rebelbase
(Who is General Chat?)
To: SmithL
This is an excellent idea which I have long advocated. It should be noted that it is very different from the Colorado proposal: Colorado would have split Electoral votes according to the ratio of overall votes instead of in winner-take-all Congressional Districts. Hence Colorado would almost always have a 5-4 split for one party or the other, and it would hardly be worth battling over its net one Electoral vote.
If the California proposal was combined with fair redistricting (which will be the subject of an upcoming initiative measure), then a large number of Congressional Districts would be competitive for both parties. California (and every other state which adopted this procedure) would instantly become a true battleground state. A strong campaign by a strong candidate from either party could sweep most of the available Electoral votes, making it well worth the effort and expense of campaigning throughout California.
Of course this is unlikely to be adopted. The Democrats currently have a lock on ALL of California's Electoral votes, so why would the Democrat-dominated state legislature pass a reform which could only dilute their Electoral College totals? And if the Republicans ever regained control of the state legislature, they would similarly be reluctant to pass a reform which would dilute their Electoral College totals in a state that was then shifting back in their direction.
43
posted on
12/01/2004 6:51:05 PM PST
by
dpwiener
To: dpwiener
Unlikely to be adopted (thank goodness) because it is even more easily manipulated than our current system.
If the Dems currently have a lock on all of CA's votes, then you folks have got to work harder.
44
posted on
12/01/2004 6:53:45 PM PST
by
livius
To: SmithL
This may sound like a good idea on the surface, until you contemplate how districts could be divided.
What's to stop Dems from making every block of San Francisco a congressional district and unifying the conservative blocks of the state into one?
Successful in CA, they then move to split conservative leaning states in same manner.
We should keep our current system.
Instead, I recommend all Californian Conservatives migrate. CA would lose some of its electoral advantage with the descrease in the population count, "red" states would turn solid and "Blue" states would become swing states would the conservative immigration.
To: rpage3
"We ought to do this across the country"
Most states would lose their relevancy in a presidential election under this formula. Your state would most likely be reduced to the two votes for majority votes. It won't happen in California, the Dems won't allow it. The Dems control the legislature and it would destroy their party nationally. It would mean more attention from the candidates in an election year though.
46
posted on
12/01/2004 6:54:34 PM PST
by
Figment
(Ich bin ein Jesuslander)
To: jackbill
I am not arguing that it would be wise politically, I am just saying it would be Constitutional. The Supreme Court has re-affirmed this in Bush v. Gore and McPherson v. Blacker.
47
posted on
12/01/2004 6:54:36 PM PST
by
Perdogg
(W stands for Winner)
To: Rebelbase
But Bush would have pivked EV in other States, We are talking Congressional Districts not counties.
48
posted on
12/01/2004 6:55:42 PM PST
by
Perdogg
(W stands for Winner)
To: SmithL
|
ACTUAL RESULTS |
MAINE-NEBRASKA RESULTS |
DIFFERENCE IN PLANS |
YEAR |
DEMS |
REPS |
OTHERS |
WINNER |
DEMS |
REPS |
OTHERS |
WINNER |
DEMS |
REPS |
OTHERS |
1960 |
303 |
219 |
15 |
Kennedy |
252 |
280 |
5 |
Nixon |
-51 |
61 |
-10 |
1964 |
486 |
52 |
0 |
Johnson |
466 |
72 |
0 |
Johnson |
-20 |
20 |
0 |
1968 |
191 |
301 |
46 |
Nixon |
190 |
290 |
58 |
Nixon |
-1 |
-11 |
12 |
1972 |
17 |
520 |
0 |
Nixon |
62 |
476 |
0 |
Nixon |
45 |
-44 |
-1 |
1976 |
297 |
240 |
1 |
Carter |
269 |
269 |
0 |
Tie |
-28 |
29 |
-1 |
1980 |
49 |
489 |
0 |
Reagan |
141 |
397 |
0 |
Reagan |
92 |
-92 |
0 |
1984 |
13 |
525 |
0 |
Reagan |
69 |
469 |
0 |
Reagan |
56 |
-56 |
0 |
1988 |
111 |
426 |
1 |
Bush |
161 |
377 |
0 |
Bush |
50 |
-49 |
-1 |
1992 |
370 |
168 |
0 |
Clinton |
323 |
215 |
0 |
Clinton |
-47 |
47 |
0 |
1996 |
379 |
159 |
0 |
Clinton |
345 |
193 |
0 |
Clinton |
-34 |
34 |
0 |
2000 |
266 |
271 |
1 |
Bush |
250 |
288 |
0 |
Bush |
-16 |
17 |
-1 |
49
posted on
12/01/2004 6:56:20 PM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
(...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
To: Perdogg
oh, my mistake. You're right.
50
posted on
12/01/2004 6:58:27 PM PST
by
Rebelbase
(Who is General Chat?)
To: Myrddin
Thank you for the reply and you are correct.
To: SmithL
Its About Time
George Will mentioned this years ago
52
posted on
12/01/2004 7:02:15 PM PST
by
DM1
To: SmithL
this was dumb in colorado, and dumb in california.
53
posted on
12/01/2004 7:03:19 PM PST
by
ken21
(against the democrat plantation.)
To: RobFromGa
What about the Republicans that were against the Colorado Plan?
To: GraniteStateConservative
Do you know what the 2004 results would have been under the Maine-Nebraska system?
To: Bernard
Your sentiment is exactly correct, but the adoption of the district plan would actually be moving us back towards the system that the founding fathers intended when they created the electoral college.
From the Congressional Digest, January 1970: "Of the several methods employed, voting for electors by the people in districts was thought to be the fairest method by such leaders as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Alexander Hamilton, and Daniel Webster. Madison is recorded as saying that this (district) method 'was mostly, if not exclusively, in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.'"
See more here at the CDPA
56
posted on
12/01/2004 7:07:45 PM PST
by
swmopatriot
(God bless our troops, our Commander-in-Chief, and the USA!)
To: SmithL
stupid idea. I hate idiot Republicans who will sacrifice prinicpal for politics.
57
posted on
12/01/2004 7:13:54 PM PST
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/terrorism.htm)
To: HostileTerritory
"Which Bush state would have had the most votes thrown to Kerry? I'd guess Texas for sheer numbers, more than Florida, but it would be more interesting to figure it as a percentage. I could see Kerry having won 3/5 districts in Iowa, 2/3 in New Mexico, but after that it's a biiiiiig drop. Georgia would give Kerry 4/13 districts; North Carolina probably the same."
I haven't seen final district numbers for most states, but I believe that Kerry only carried 8 of the 32 CDs in Texas: The three black-plurality districts and 5 of the Hispanic-majority districts. I'm assuming that Bush carried both Solomon Ortiz's and Ruben Hinojosa's districts, since Bush scored in the high 40s in those districts (as redrawn) in 2000 and he seems to have improved by about 5% in those districts. I think Kerry carried only 6 of the 25 districts in Florida (the three black-majority CDs plus the Wexler, Deutsch and Jim Davis districts), which is a testament to Republican redistricting (I'm assuming that Bush carried both Shaw's and Bill Young's CDs, which showd improvement from 2000 and in which Bush had gotten around 47% in 2000). The next big state carried by Bush was OH, and, because the GOP controlled redistricting there as well, Kerry managed to carry only 5 of the 18 CDs.
In IA, Kerry carried only 2 out of 5 CDs (Bush barely carried the state's only CD with a Dem congressman). In NM, I'm not sure who carried Wilson's Albuquerque-based CD, so Kerry won either 1 or 2 of the state's 3 CDs. In GA, where the Dems controlled redistricting, I think that Kerry only carried 4 of the 13 CDs, assuming that Kerry rather narrowly carried the 12th CD (won by Barrow over GOP Congressman Burns) and that Bush carried Sanford Bishop's 2nd CD (in which Bush had gotten 50% in 2000); Bishop's CD is the only one held by a black Democrat Congressman to have been carried by Bush in either 2000 or 2004. In NC, Kerry carried just 3 out of the 13 CDs (the two black-plurality districts and the Durham-Chapel Hill CD held by Price). In MO, Kerry would win 3 CDs (KC and the 2 St Louis CDs). I don't think any other Bush state would give Kerry as many as 3 electoral votes.
And, of course, President Bush would gain lots of EVs if every Kerry state had a Maine-style system: 20 in CA, 10 or 11 in PA, 10 in MI, 9 or 10 in NY, 9 or 10 in IL, 5 or 6 in NJ, etc. I think President Bush would have won around 335 electoral votes if every state handed out EVs by congressional district like Maine and Nebraska do, as opposed to 286 EVs with the current system. And, more importantly, it would have required a large popular-vote margin for Kerry or any Democrat to get to 270 EVs. With winner-takes-all, Kerry could have gotten 289 EVs had just 3% of the vote shifted (Kerry would have won the popular vote 49.5%-48.5%), but with a Maine-style system Bush would have gotten over 310 EVs even had he lost the popular vote by 1% because of a 3% vote swing.
So yes, a Maine-style system adopted nationwide would pretty much keep the presidency in GOP hands for the foreseeable future, so long as the Democrats don't screw us too badly in the post-2010 Census redistricting.
58
posted on
12/01/2004 7:22:40 PM PST
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: Cicero
I share your concerns. Our founding fathers have been proven, time and again, to be wise beyond all understanding and expectation. I think we should stick with what they designed. Your point about judges tinkering with the redistricting processes in the states is very astute!
To: Perdogg
"In Minnesota, Kerry won the 5th and the 8th CD. Bush won the 1st,2nd,3th,4th,6th,and 7th CD."
No, the 4th CD, which includes all of Ramsey County (St. Paul) and northern Dakota County, gave Kerry 61.8% and Bush 37.1%. Had President Bush carried the heavily Democrat 4th CD, Betty McCollum would not be the district's Congresswoman (Patrice Bataglia would have beaten her handily) and Bush would have easily carried the state.
60
posted on
12/01/2004 7:27:34 PM PST
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson