[Cringing Negativism Network]

Does this mean across the nation?

So in every state, in every district, the votes are allocated representatively?

If so, I might go for this.

Has to be national though.

[re_nortex]

Does this mean across the nation? So in every state, in every district, the votes are allocated representatively?
If so, I might go for this. Has to be national though.

I advocate the allocation at the county level:

The results are obvious as shown by the 2012 breakdown on a county-by-county basis. Real Americas, the producers, are country and suburban dwellers. The stinking corpses of urban areas are (mostly) filled with corrupt machine politicians, illegal aliens and leeches on welfare. The pro-America patriots residing outside of the cities have their votes negated by the unions and thugs who have a vice-grip on the urban vote. This is nothing short of disenfranchisement. A county-based allocation will fix this festering problem that favors DemonRATS.

[RIghtwardHo]

Agreed. Though I think the EC should be abolished. I don’t like the “some states do, some states don’t” aspect of this. I also don’t think the GOP appreciates that huge backlash this will cause.

Just run and promote good, Conservative candidates. This smacks of desperation and, probably, has equal protection issues.

Can’t we just have good candidates?

[Sacajaweau]

The Dems have proven that pure demographics (blacks and hispanics) can win an election....good evidence of "how to beat the electoral college".

Yes, it should be national.

[Baynative]

"Has to be national though."

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?

[Redmen4ever]

The Republicans can (and should) make this national in the following way:

1. Do this in all the battleground states they control (if they had done this for the 2012 election - FL, IA, MI, OH, PA, VA and WI - they would have elected Mitt). At least, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (winning Florida, where we came very close, plus a share of those three state, would do the trick; then, nominate Rubio for ‘16).

2. And propose a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to require ALL states to apportion their EVs this way. Enough Democrats would join us, to eliminate the advantage we’d gain by selectively applying the rule.

3. Even clean up a few things:

3a. Eliminate “Electors.”

3b. Have the Congress, in the event that no slate of candidates receives a majority of the EV, elect the slate of candidates in a joint session with each Senator and Representative casting one vote, for one of the two slates receiving the most EVs.

3c. Give DC, as long as what remains of it isn’t retroceded to Maryland, one Congressman, and have its people participate with Maryland in Senate and Presidential elections.

This total package would, right now, give the Republicans a slight advantage, which we would keep IF we keep control of a large majority of the state governments, which is the way it should be.

[BfloGuy]

Has to be national though.

You can't make it a "national" law. It would have to be state-by-state.

[discostu]

The Constitution says the states decide how their EC votes are decided, there doesn’t even have to be a vote of any kinds, the state legislature could just appoint them. So it HAS to be decided state by state.

[kabar]

No, each state decides how to allocate its electoral votes. This is not meant to be a national idea or to be implemented nationally. It is a GOP strategy to get electoral votes from swing states where they hold the governorship and the legislature like Ohio, PA, WI, FL, and VA.