Posted on 03/15/2015 2:08:04 PM PDT by cripplecreek
LANSING, MI -- A Republican presidential candidate hasn't won Michigan since 1988, but with 2016 on the horizon, GOP lawmakers are proposing bills that could help a second-place finisher win some electoral college votes here.
• Rigging? State Rep. Cindy Gamrat, R-Plainwell, this month reintroduced legislation that would award Michigan's electoral college votes by Congressional District, ditching the winner-take-all model that most states use and diminishing the influence of large cities that can swing a vote.
David Weigel of Bloomberg News, calling the bill part of the "electoral college-rigging movement," noted that Republican nominee Mitt Romney would have won nine of Michigan's 16 electoral college votes in 2012 under the proposed system despite losing to Democratic President Barack Obama by nearly 450,000 votes.
But Gamrat, who posted the Bloomberg article on Facebook, defended her proposal online. It would increase "the value of every Michigan citizen's vote in Presidential elections," she wrote. "Far from electoral college rigging - it strengthens the voice of each Michigan voter!"
• Proportional: Sen. Dave Hildenbrand, meanwhile, introduced a bill this week that would divide Michigan's electoral votes proportionally based on the number of votes the top candidate receives. Win 54 percent of the vote, as Obama received in 2012, a candidate would get 9 of 16 electoral votes. The runner-up would get the rest.
"I think it just better reflects the voters of the state," Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, told MLive. "Instead of a Republican winning and all electoral votes just represent the Republican voters, or a Democrat wins and all electoral votes represent Democrats, why can't we have a system that reflects all voters of our state?"
In an interesting twist, Hildenbrand tie-barred his bill to another from Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, that would see Michigan join a National Popular Vote compact. If enough states sign on, each would award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Until then, Michigan would go with a proportional system.
• TIMING: The exercise may be academic, as Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has shied away from proposed electoral college legislation each of the last two years, saying it would be more appropriate to have the discussion following the next U.S. Census.
House Elections Chair Lisa Lyons, R-Alto, told Gongwer News Service it may already be too close to 2016 to modify the state's electoral college system. Senate Elections Chair Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc, said he wants to study the Hildenbrand and Warren bills, but doesn't expect to hold a hearing anytime soon.
This is the year to have the debate, according to Hildenbrand. "I think once it gets into next year the parties are trying to position themselves to advantage a certain candidate or party," he said. "So I don't think next year is the time to have this conversation, but this year it is."
Yeah. Our founders never intended the largest cities to pick our presidents any more than they wanted the largest states to pick our presidents.
I don’t have to.
Every state with a GOP controlled state legislature that went for Obama twice and the ‘Rat in either Bush election should be switching to the “Nebraska” system, and maybe those that just went for Obama twice as well.
The proposal is absurd in a way because joining the left’s subversion of the Electoral College (the “national popular vote compact”) and doing the sensible thing in the meantime is quite frankly bizarre — “Hey, let’s let the big cities nationwide pick our Presidents, but in the meantime let’s dilute the influence of the big cities in our own state” — it really makes no sense at all.
You’re the one claiming he would be different than Obama; given that Obama’s actions stem from an adherence to statism, I fail to see how a statist in the same position would be distinctly different.
Has anyone thought of rigging the Republican primary so only Republicans vote in it?
Just a thought. I’m tired of our candidate being chosen by the Democrat machine who sends out their union minions with instructions on who to vote for in the Republican primary.
We’re better off now but not perfect because we can only vote 1 way on a primary ballot.
Its fine in elections where the democrats have contested races of their own but if they’ve got candidates without challengers they can play GOP in the primaries.
I understand and agree that you fail to see the difference between Obama and Romney. I refuse to engage in sophistry.
:: a National Popular Vote compact. If enough states sign on, each would award their electoral votes to the winner ::
Provided, of course, the pact is FIRST ratified by the Congress of the United States and there-after survives all SCOTUS challenges.
IOW, ain’t gonna happen in our lifetime. And, I believe that Snyder can veto such a pact, which I suspect he would.
I’d like to see it done in MN, WI, MI, OH, PA, FL, and even IL. Don’t know if it would matter in CA
Dave Hildenbrand... tie-barred his bill to another from Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, that would see Michigan join a National Popular Vote compact. If enough states sign on, each would award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.Getting the four biggest states into the SPV, or better yet, getting NY and CA into it, would be a disaster for the Dim-o-crats, because in those larger states which are heavily blue, red turnout is normally depressed; there would be a greater incentive for red voters to show up there and everywhere, knowing they can drag the blue states kicking and screaming into a Republican White House. That assumes, of course, that they'll follow their own law when they lose (which will be often).
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.