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 ...
Awarding EVs based on majority of counties would violate the ‘one man, one vote’ principle that the SC invented in the ‘60s. No foreseeable court will change that.
Awarding EVs based on congressional districts is OK because CD populations are roughly equal.
Good luck with getting 38 states on that amendment.
“It “may” have mattered ONLY in this last election, which is a really bad frame of reference for making this far reaching change.”
Explain yourself - the previous election went the same way. This makes sense to me as a general rule. The presidential election would basically follow the congressional one. It also would make the races much harder to predict.
Different states are moving in different directions depending upon on their politics. The ones where eliminating WTA would benefit conservatives the most are Dim states with sizeable Repub minorities. So places like California despite professing to hate the Electoral College will not do this to avoid helping enfranchise Republicans and noncity voters.
Repeal the 17th. This is why many Republicans in states with large cities have no voice in the Senate.
“Actually, it’s the WORST thing Republicans could do.”
Unequivocally yes. Apportionment by CD is one thing. Apportionment by popular vote, quite another.
Agreed
I "might" make for a short term gain but in the long run defiantly a bad move.
I think that's a great argument in our favor. In many states elections are controlled by one or two urban areas while the rest of the state is disenfranchised. Washington, where I live in an example of this. It was considered a deep blue state with 12 votes going to Obama in a winner take all contest when in actuality only 4 congressional districts were solid blue, two were pretty close and 6 were red. In a proportional allocation those 6 red votes would have gone to Romney. Even though those districts vote republican, many people don't bother to turn out because they know we are controlled by three urban counties and most of the state votes don't matter, except for local offices.
One thing I've found is that getting a pictorial map of the district allocation is almost impossible. I have to go to each state returns and then add votes myself. Could it be the media would like to keep these numbers as quiet as possible? I think so since it's dems who are pushing to do away with the electoral college and decide all elections by popular vote.
Yes, it should be national.
What would you replace it with?
The Dems won’t go for this.....they would lose consistently.
I tend to agree with you Larry. Our Founder’s brilliance is in everything they implemented. The changes made to our founding principles such as the 17th amendment are why we are in the position we’re in now.
Leave the electoral college alone but push for ratification of Article The First (Google it), and watch the nation turn around in just one election cycle! Pushing for the repeal of the 17th amendment would be helpful as well.
Finally, return to the founding principles, call for a special session of Congress to review the entirety of the US Code and repeal laws that are unconstitutional by the original intent of our nation’s founding documents, and force the closure of unconstitutional executive branch offices (I.e. DoE, EPA, ATF, and the NLRB), and we will be in a much better place.
Pie in the sky, I know, but someone has to say it.
Completely agree! Also ratify Article the First.
It's up to individual states. Like I said there are currently two that allocate proportionally at present. Look at what goes on in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio or Washington where the entire state is controlled by a congested urban area where fraudulent voting by unions and government dependents is the norm. Those states might see a much different outcome if all their rural voters had a voice.
Note, also, that the DNC is working to end the electoral college. Any idea why?
The good news is that it puts a firewall around all the vote fraud plagued inner cities. The bad news is that it won’t get enacted in a state unless the Republicans control the governor’s office and the legislature.
There was more to my post than that first part. I said to leave it alone, not just to leave it.
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.
