Not that they don't have it coming. It just tends to screw the Dems, as shown here:
Posted on 09/15/2011 7:15:39 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.
The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.
Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)
This could cost Obama dearly...
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
The Lefties seem to be genuinely afeared of this PA proposal.
I'm not so sure it's such a great idea myself, however. From a tactical point of view, while we may pick up EVs in states that we usually lose, like PA and IL, it seems that these would be balanced somewhat by losing EVs from Dem seats in states we *usually* win, like FL, NC, IN, etc.
Ultimately, however, I think this EV idea is dangerous specifically because it would almost eliminate the concept of divided government.
Think about it - whoever wins Congress would almost certainly also win the Presidency. While that may be good when we have a GOP President win and come in with a GOP Congress (well, unless they act like Bush II and Congress from 2000-2006....), what about if another Obama wins, and gets a Congress just like him?
What will cost 0bama is that he is an America hating communist.
It’s an excellent idea, and key to this is the fact that is the state GOP organizations and NOT the national GOP who are pushing it through. Pennsylvania is dominated by Philly and Pittsburgh, and assigning electoral votes to the Commonwealth’s individual congressional districts would break the cities’ stranglehold and finally give largely Conservative rural voters a say in the election.
Not if you factor the massive advantage incumbents have. There might be a new President, but the Congresscritter would remain.
Genius just isn’t the word. Stupid is. Rig the system and not too far in the future, it will come back tio bite them. This shows the corrupt side of politics - win by stealth and deception, not by winning the voters over by good policies.
Actually, it’s been the Democrats who have been pushing this idea for several years. It’s not a Republican idea at all. It’s been their way of getting around the Electoral College.
So I’m with you. I oppose the idea. It almost makes it like a parliamentary system, in which we vote in one government or another, liberal or conservative, and the president becomes nothing more than a prime minister.
Not that they don't have it coming. It just tends to screw the Dems, as shown here:
They are setting the stage for riots.
No, it was the 'rat party that opened this pandora electoral college box. Its just that the 'rats start this without any brain cell activity, in a knee-jerk kind of way... and now a few republicans have actually thought about it, and have found a legal constitutional way to proceed that accomplishes what the 'rats wanted to do, but now for republicans. 'Rats should never have pushed the notion of electoral college nullification, and neither should have pushed, way back when, the 17th amendment.
—Rig the system and not too far in the future...—
I would not apply the word “rig” to this. It actually makes it more fair. It is appalling that one guy can “slightly” win a ton of states and, therefore win all of their votes, while the other can win far more votes, but they are lumped in only a few states, so he ends up losing. I like representative government to be a little more “local” than that.
This idea has been analyzed several times since 2000 and in the long run comes out to favor the rats...bad idea.
The Constitution is very specific that it is up to each State to make rules to govern how their Electoral College electors are to be chosen. It wasn’t until 1836, I believe, that all States finally held elections to determine the electors. In 1832, South Carolina, for example, had their electors chosen by the State Legislature.
Maine and Nebraska already divide their electors this way, so there is certainly current precedent.
If you think you’ve seen Gerrymandering before, just wait until a plan like this is implemented.
The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution. If change is needed - change the Constitution all fair and square and above-board.
“But given the state of the economy and Obama’s low approval ratings, the election is likely to be close”
Close???? Where has this guy been for the past 3 years?
How about combining them? Candidate who won the most EVs would get all EVs from that state.
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.