Posted on 01/26/2013 11:45:40 AM PST by Baynative
Republicans in swing states that went for President Obama are pushing for a big change in how the Electoral College works, reports the Washington Post. The idea is to apportion electoral votes according to congressional district, instead of the winner-take-all system that most states employ. In Virginia, for example, the difference would be dramatic—Obama would have taken only four of the state's 13 electoral votes in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
The worst thing?
I don’t know any serious student of politics who would today propose the U.S. system of electing a President.
The system was designed at a time when it was thought that voters were not able to make an informed direct choice of a President. So, they would vote for Electors (or, even more indirectly, they’d vote for state legislators who would vote for Electors).
During the early part of the 19th Century, the individual states moved from various methods of appointing their Electors to the slate method. They did this because each of them wanted to maximize their impact on the outcome. They didn’t shift because they thought this was in the national interest.
It is true that under the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. became the world’s greatest country, but that is because of such things as (1) our private-property based, market-oriented economy, (2) our system of checks and balances, and (3) the accountability of our elected officials to the people through periodic elections; and, it is not because of the particular way to which we have evolved for electing the President.
The way to cause the other party to support a national shift is by first shifting the battleground states that we control.
Think asymmetric.
Then, the other side will see that they can reduce their disadvantage by shifting all the states.
In the long run, I’m not sure this favors one party over the other. It favors the party that controls the majority of state governments (which, right now, is us), since the states control re-districting.
And I think that’s a good thing.
Let’s do something restore the balance between our state governments and our national government.
Under this system, with all 50 states using this method (which would never happen), Romney would have won 272-262.
I love this idea. But the left are also scheming that Congressional apportionment should be done not by districts but by similar pattern to electoral college. Obviously they know the advantage the would have. However, they are saying an “independent, non-partisan” board should draw up congressional districts. I have had a back and forth with a nephew because I maintain there is NO such thing as non-partisan. If it ever existed, it would quickly be perverted, probably by leftists, as every other entity. He is a young college graduate hippy. Heaven help us.
Repeal the 17th!
If this is such a great idea then do it in New York, California, and Illinois for starters.
There’s really no telling what the result would have been under this system, as many factors would change. In addition to the campaign focus shifting from swing states to swing districts nationwide - which could be a good thing, the biggest problem would be fraud and challenges. Recall Florida 2000 and multiply that by at least 40. And after 2000, the Democrats appear to have honed their skills to take all close races.
The electoral college has its problems, but perfect is the enemy of good.
Instead of a county map, I’d like to see a congressional district map. It would make more sense in relation to this discussion.
I have yet to find one.
Exactly the point.
I mentioned that before. There was a lot of discussion about this after the 2010 election that (of course) did not elect a President, but was the last election before census redistricting.
Since then and maybe as a result none of the media mappers have shown congressional district breakouts. This leads me to believe that liberals fear this idea and don't want it publicized.
No, it is a common sense idea that Reps should try to implement in swing states they can control. It makes so much sense that the Stupid Party won't do it.
Prime candidates for implementing it would be in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. The Reps control the governorship and the legislature.
The rapidly changing demographics of this country will make the Reps the permanent minority party. When you look at how cities like Cleveland and Philadelphia can stuff the ballot box thru their corrupt Dem controlled city machines, the Reps must do something to level the playing field.
The way things are going, the Reps won't win the WH for a very, very long time. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2042 half of the country will be minorities.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.
Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power. And most of them are living in urban areas.
You can't make it a "national" law. It would have to be state-by-state.
The Constitution says the states decide how their EC votes are decided, there doesn’t even have to be a vote of any kinds, the state legislature could just appoint them. So it HAS to be decided state by state.
You don't seem to get it. The GOP can only use this in swing states where they control the governorship and the legislature. Otherwise the Dems would block it. The Dems would never agree to change the way the electoral votes are allocated in NY, CA, and Il where they control the statehouse and the legislature. Similarly the GOP would never agree to do that in Texas.
Here in VA, if we had allocated our 13 electoral votes that way, Romney would have received 10 and Obama 3.
Oops then why would (any) state want to change how they appoint their delegates?
Right now, winner takes all.
That would seem to be the most efficient, no?
Why fix this, unless every state changed the way they appoint delegates?
Both parties wish to solidify their pre-arranged slices of the pie, their districts are mostly gerrymandered to the point that the incumbent cannot lose in the general and earns a lifelong appointment to the royalty.
No, each state decides how to allocate its electoral votes. This is not meant to be a national idea or to be implemented nationally. It is a GOP strategy to get electoral votes from swing states where they hold the governorship and the legislature like Ohio, PA, WI, FL, and VA.
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.
