Adoption of the Maine-Nebraska system of allocating votes in the Electoral College nationwide would have solved the problem of manipulation of selected precincts in swing states that helped give us the results we see in 2012.
It would also help to mandate documentation of eligibility of candidates prior to giving them ballot access.
I think the idea of using the Maine-Nebraska system has some merits. My biggest concern would be if the “losing” candidate decided to go fishing in close congressional districts to contest votes. Where we currently have a few states to worry about, we might have many 10s of districts spread out across the country to have to deal with (recounts, voter fraud, lawyers, etc.). It would also make for an interesting situation should strong enough third candidates (like Perot) win enough congressional districts to prevent a majority on Election Day.
Question is: in 23 states where (R)'s control both chambers and the governor's mansions, if they decided to apportion the votes for the electoral college tally, is there enough to tip the election to us?
If so, all (R) governors should call emergency sessions ahead of the Dec 17 electoral college tally and declare this to be so.
FReegards!
” - - - - Under the Maine-Nebraska electoral system, the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote is allotted that state’s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of the electoral votes in each state are allocated based on the popular vote for president and vice president in each of the state’s congressional districts. - - - “
Two questions:
1.) What effect would the Rural vs City polarized voting patterns of 2004 and 2008 have had on the Presidential election results?
2.) Does the Neb-Maine system bring us closer to being a Democracy or a Republic?
REPEAL THE 17TH!
Just think what the senate would be like, a representative proxy republic instead of national mob rule.
Look at my state Michigan for example, redder than red at the state level - there would have not been a re-election for Fat Deb Stabacow and Karl Marx Levin would finally be booted.
Author is correct, senate races are essentially nationalized.
If this pathetic GOP wants to go anywhere and not dissolve itself as a party, needs to stand up, dust itself off, forget national elections for now.
Go grass roots and get this 17th Amendment off the books.
I fear that conservatives have lost sight of the prize.
I’ve been advocating this for years. That or letting the House vote for President.
It will never happen. The progressive-statist would not allow it.
Just imagine the shift if only CA and NY were to join Maine and Nebraska.
I would really like to see all states adopt the Maine-Nebraska method of allocating mostly by Congressional District.
Our Republic was designed to protect the minority from the majority, KEEP IT THAT WAY!
The current Winner-Take-All Allocation in 48 states is tremendously flawed. Fraud of even 1 vote [in a 50-50 split] can tip all of the electoral votes of a state to the other side.
Also, predominately Blue [or Red] states are routinely bypassed by the candidate of the opposite party since there is no chance in hell of that candidate winning the electoral votes.
There are 2 better methods - Proportional Allocation and Congressional District Allocation.
Proportional Allocation is based on the whole percentage of the vote state-wide, but is only marginally better than Winner-Take-All Allocation. Proportional Allocation suffers to the same degree as Winner-Take-All Allocation in that the extremely Blue and Red areas within a state will [mostly] be bypassed by the candidate of the opposite party.
By far the fairest is Congressional District Allocation, where the winner of a district gets its electoral vote, with the overall winner of the state getting the remaining 2 electoral votes as a bonus. This method reflects the way that we elect Congress - by district for Representatives and by state for Senators.
Each and every electoral vote [district-wise] is put on an equal footing throughout the entire country. In Blue [or Red] states, the candidate of the opposite party is encouraged to fight for votes in each and every competitive district.
Voters in the opposite party in a Blue [or Red] state are encouraged to vote since [if their candidate wins their district], their candidate gets their electoral vote. Otherwise, with Winner-Take-All Allocation in heavily Blue [or Red] states - voters of the opposite party often don’t vote at all.
Congressional District Allocation lends itself the least to fraud. Fraud that could tip the scales in a state would have to be committed significantly in each and every district in order to have a meaningful effect.
Finally, recounts would be minimized - they would only be necessary in districts within the state-mandated margin of error and a state-wide recount would not be mandated unless the state [as a whole] was within the same state-mandated margin of error.
Which means that any presidential campaign, to be successful under that system, would require the expenditure of 10 to 20 times as much money as at present.
Every candidate for President would have to be an independently-wealthy billionaire.