Posted on 01/26/2017 8:58:10 AM PST by SMGFan
As of January 2017, only two states divvy up their electoral votes by Congressional district, but now members of the Minnesota House of Representatives have introduced a bill to make their state the third to do so. The basics of the change is this: instead of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the statewide winner, the electoral votes are awarded by the winner of each Congressional District. Say you win districts 3 and 5 in your state while losing overall. You still pick up two electoral votes, even if you had been crushed statewide. After the Congressional-level votes have been allotted, the two leftover electoral votes (each state’s electoral vote equals their total Congressional (X number in the House and 2 Senators) are awarded to the statewide winner.
The Speaker of the State House, Kurt Daudt, is a co-sponsor, and may soon find himself in the same position as Pennsylvania’s former Senate Majority leader Dominic Pileggi, who attempted such a move back in late 2011 and again in 2013. Those actions preceding the 2012 cycle were met with outcry from the left and some on the right, the former calling it blatantly political and the latter shortsighted.
(Excerpt) Read more at decisiondeskhq.com ...
Why would democrates in a blue state want to do this? It would only give more EC votes to the opposing party.
it would decrease the power of large population cities which are usually high percent and total votes for democrats. Michigan, PA, CA and NY would be a good thing.
If every state did it (which will never happen), then the electoral vote would essentially mirror the Congressional vote. The last time I looked, the Democrats lost a majority of the Congressional districts.
Careful gerrymandering could fix that, but it would require that Democrats first elect governors and state legislatures that would fix it for them. The last time I looked, the Democrats lost a majority of the gubernatorial and state legislative elections too.
The only thing that would fix the Democrats current problem would be a straight popular vote, so that the Democrat controlled urban areas could rule all of the stupid people in flyover country who don't know enough to vote for socialist candidates.
As long as it is blue states doing this, it’s a win for us.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of January 2017, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
10 Dem states passed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
May be the only way a conservative or Republican is going to get anything out of MN...and since VA is so blue, may be true in Virginia, too.
Somewhat. Congressional districts are apportioned by population (both between the states and within each state), so urban areas get more Congressional districts than rural.
Like I said in a post above, I am all in favor of reliably Democrat states doing it, since rather than all of their electoral votes going to the Democrat some will go to the Republican. On the other hand, it would be stupid for any Republican states to do it.
You can play "What If?" HERE
Via the EV by CD route, the Republicans would have picked up two EVs in Minnesota.
They want to award EVS based on popular vote of the country regardless who won their state. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
For example ... if California votes overwhelmingly for a Democratic presidential candidate but has to cast its 55 electoral votes for a Republican under the terms of this "interstate compact," you can be sure that the California legislature will hold a vote in late November to extricate itself from the compact.
But even in my state of Illinois which is already as heavily gerrymandered as you can possibly get, it would split the EVs in a much more favorable way. Just compare the map I posted with the IL CD map and you’ll instantly see that while the blue population centers (mostly Chicago) can win statewide majority they cannot do so in each CD. If the worst cases of gerrymandering were corrected (which may happen even thought the courts refused to allow the most recent referendum to appear on the ballot), a sane map would allow the red areas of the state to become a plurality.
As of last election, Minnesota has a republican legislature.
Your opinion??? Did you ever look at a map of congressional districts across the USA?
We won 5-1 in this past election and if they ever did this nationwide, the demonRATS would get beat 400 to 100 and the other 35 would float, depending on the election cycle.
Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force.
look at the EC map...where are the remaining 105 votes coming from? This plan is doomed from the start...regardless of its dubious constitutionality...
No it wouldn’t Trump still wins the EV
No it wouldn’t Trump still wins the EV
I thought you were referring to the idea that CD allocation would not change results as opposed to WTA allocation...irrespective of any particular election...
It is an obviously unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Article II and the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.
As a practical matter, it would be beyond stupid for most of the lower population, rural states to go along with it. Some far left-wing Democrat controlled rural states are jumping on the bandwagon, but they are basically voting to turn over their citizens' right to have any say in the Presidential election, so that the large urban areas can do it for them. Plus, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress would also have to go along with any interstate compact.
So far, the 10 states that have signed up total about 165 electoral votes. Most of those electoral votes (118 out of the 165) come from the four states that would benefit most and end up picking all future Presidents, California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey.
Texas, Florida and enough other Republican majority states that add up to 270 electoral votes need to enter into a competing compact, agreeing to never agree to the Democrats' 270 compact. That would quickly end this stupidity.
Trump won 56 of 62 counties in NYS and about 6 CDs.
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.