Michigan legislative action thread
Thanks for the heads up.
That would put Romney in the lead--though not at a win.
Now, if I recall correctly, in Nebraska and Maine, the OTHER two electoral votes go to the "overall" statewide winner.
Romney won 24 states in 2012, which would have given him 48 more electoral votes if the Nebraska/Maine model were followed.
226+48=274 Electoral votes.
Valerie's man-child was able to seize 26 states plus the DC region. That would net her team 55 EVs.
209+55=264.
Romney would be the one working to rebuild America, instead of Hussein doing Val's bidding in destroying the republic.
This has enormous potential. There are quite a few states where the winner is decided by the voter fraud in big cities in that state. However, it’s a bit like belling the cat — you have to get a GOP majority and governor in the state before it could pass.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The state legislatures need to grow some and work with patriots to put a stop to illegal federal taxes. And when voters manage to peacefully force corrupt Congress back into its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power cage, then we’re probably going to have problems finding good people to serve as federal lawmakers.
On the other hand, since the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with military, serving as federal lawmaker would be a good way to honor outstanding retired soldiers.
The electoral college is enumerated in terms of the number of Congressional districts, plus one for each Senate seat.
Not sure why this simple solution eludes folks (other than protecting their own self-serving interests).
Each congressional district gets ONE EV, and it casts in favor of the national candidate taking a plurality of the vote in that district.
Each State then has two EV’s to be cast in favor of the candidate who wins a plurality of the vote in the State.
Simple. Representative of the Congressional district politics at the same time.
Levels out the uneven playing field monopolized by large metro areas. Here in Ohio, for instance, it doesn’t take too close a look to see that the State would have swung heavily Republican if you take out the inordinate influence of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus; add in Dayton and Toledo, and those of us elsewhere in the State could just say home.
It would be great, but it would never happen in MI. PA had the same idea a couple of years back but nixed it when it had a nominal Republican governor.
I’d rather have the house vote for the President.
Districts select their representative and the representative votes for the President. No winner take all.
I prefer the district system.
A simple majority (50+ %) of each district decides which candidate receives that district’s electoral vote. If none of the candidates receive a majority, the two candidates that receive the most votes have a run off election 30 days later.
The state then has two other electoral votes. One should go to the candidate that received the most votes in the state. The second should go to the candidate that won the most districts in that state. Should there not a candidate that won the most districts in that state, the Gov at the time of the election appoints the state’s final electoral vote.
This is also something that the Wisconsin Legislature should consider.
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.
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.
:: 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.
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).