GOP Moves to Scrap Winner-Take-All Voting

Newser ^ | Jan 25, 2013 | Mark Russell

[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.