Some Republicans want to change Electoral College (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
7,846
Reaction score
8,273
Offline
So you've lost national elections. Changing demographics doesn't make the future look bright.

You could change your message, you could change the way that message is presented to the public, you could tone down the rhetoric, you could stop saying stupid things about women and women's rights, you could stop dismissing science, you could cast out the crazies in your party, you could limit the influence of crazies outside your party (Rush, Beck, O'Reilly, etc), you could start reaching out to those you've ignored in the past (minorites, gays etc)

But why do any of that when you can try to change to rules so you win without changing a dam thing.

I really truly hope that this story is not true.
============================================================

As the Republican National Committee concludes its three-day meeting in Charlotte, N.C., you’ve by now heard all the different ways Republicans are looking to improve their standing in time for the next presidential election. They want to do a better job reaching out to Latinos (see Jeb Bush’s WSJ op-ed), they want to soften their tone when it comes to social issues, and they want to narrow their technological and get-out-the-vote operation gap with Democrats. But here’s another way you might not have heard: Some Republicans are looking to change the Electoral College system in battleground states that Democrats have won in the last two cycles.

As the Washington Post reports, Republicans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- all controlled at the state level (in some form or fashion) by the GOP -- have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state except for two (Maine and Nebraska). “No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the plan as soon as next week,” the Post says.

That would give the GOP a HUGE advantage: The Republicans advocating these changes say they would give smaller communities more of a voice in presidential battleground states. But there’s a bigger story here: The moves would give the GOP a significant advantage due to the fact that redistricting has concentrated the Democratic vote to just a handful of congressional districts in these states.

Take Virginia, for example: Obama won the state in 2012 by four percentage points and by about 150,000 votes -- and he took all of the state’s 13 electoral votes. But under the proposed changes, Mitt Romney would have won nine of the state’s electoral votes to Obama’s four. Put another way, if every electoral vote in the country was awarded by congressional district (plus two votes to the statewide winner), Romney would have defeated Obama, 276 to 262 in electoral votes (instead of Obama winning 332 to 206).........................


First Thoughts: Changing the rules, not the party - First Read


More articles:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/26/republicans-nefarious-election-ploy.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0096e6-6654-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html
 

FatiusJeebs

The Commish
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,868
Reaction score
844
Location
Clearwater, FL
Offline
If you look at electoral maps....Dems win states because they usially win big cities. Even though most state maps were practically red...the blue spots were where the highly populated areas were....so the smaller communities do tend to get the shaft. I remember the FL map kinda looking that way. SE Fl, TB area, and Orlando were blue....the rest was red and yet...Obama took FL.
 

TechDawg09

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
5,764
Location
Dallas
Offline
If you look at electoral maps....Dems win states because they usually win more votes than Republicans. Even though most state maps were practically red...the blue spots were where the people resided....so the smaller communities have fewer people. I remember the FL map kinda looking that way. SE Fl, TB area, and Orlando were blue....the rest was red and yet...Obama took FL because he received more votes than Romney.
fify :9:

You seem to associate colors with votes instead of associating votes with votes.

If they want to talk about allocating a percentage of the electoral votes based on percentage of votes received, that might not sound as voter-supressiony as allocating based on a method that gives the GOP candidate more electoral votes than the Dem candidate despite receiving fewer votes in the state. The Republicans were outvoted by every measure at the national level--Dems received more votes in the presidential and representative elections--they should be figuring out how to get more people to vote for them instead of pissing more people off. As you can tell, the House election process is already rigged enough (how else could they receive fewer votes and still have a majority?).
 

drob8785

All-Pro
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
1,905
Location
DC
Offline
If you look at electoral maps....Dems win states because they usially win big cities. Even though most state maps were practically red...the blue spots were where the highly populated areas were....so the smaller communities do tend to get the shaft. I remember the FL map kinda looking that way. SE Fl, TB area, and Orlando were blue....the rest was red and yet...Obama took FL.
The map you're thinking of is this one:



It shows who won each county, despite differences in population or how close the vote was. New York City, despite being more populous than 38 states, is only represented in that map as a small dot.

Without any context, you'd think that it would've meant a huge Republican victory. But Obama won, 338-206 and by nearly 4 points in the popular vote.

A more accurate map of the 2012 election is this one:



It morphs the size of the counties based on how many people live in them, and colors the counties based on the outcome of the vote, so the closer the vote, the more purple the county.

And of course, neither map shows the full picture -- since the electoral college further morphs the map to give smaller states a larger voice.
 

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
10,795
Offline
Everything old is new again. Including this thread (what happened to the first one on this topic? Page 2 or 3?)

From the WaPo article:

The bill in Virginia isn’t the first time that such a measure has come up. In fact, several have been introduced over the past decade, all with the same rationale of giving more say to voters on the losing side. The only difference is that those bills were submitted by Democrats, back when they weren’t having as much luck in the state in presidential elections. None of those measures made it out of committee.
Personally I think the Congressional District allocation method would be the best. Obama would have gotten electoral credit for dominating NOLA in Louisiana, and Romney would have gotten credit for winning the rest of the state. Same thing for Austin/Texas or any number of states where there is a sharp divide inside the state.
 

TechDawg09

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
5,764
Location
Dallas
Offline
Personally I think the Congressional District allocation method would be the best. Obama would have gotten electoral credit for dominating NOLA in Louisiana, and Romney would have gotten credit for winning the rest of the state. Same thing for Austin/Texas or any number of states where there is a sharp divide inside the state.
You're forgetting this part, though:

Take Virginia, for example: Obama won the state in 2012 by four percentage points and by about 150,000 votes -- and he took all of the state’s 13 electoral votes. But under the proposed changes, Mitt Romney would have won nine of the state’s electoral votes to Obama’s four. Put another way, if every electoral vote in the country was awarded by congressional district (plus two votes to the statewide winner), Romney would have defeated Obama, 276 to 262 in electoral votes (instead of Obama winning 332 to 206)
So, despite winning the popular vote by roughly 5,000,000 votes, Obama would have lost the election under that system.

The electoral system may not be the best, but it will work better than the congressional district system more times than not. Again, I will accept arguments for a more proportional system, but the congressional district system is a more ****ed up version of the current system.
 

the-commish

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
6,521
Reaction score
5,705
Location
Henderson, NV
Offline
If you look at electoral maps....Dems win states because they usially win big cities. Even though most state maps were practically red...the blue spots were where the highly populated areas were....so the smaller communities do tend to get the shaft. I remember the FL map kinda looking that way. SE Fl, TB area, and Orlando were blue....the rest was red and yet...Obama took FL.
That is true. And, if you look at an overall electoral map of the U.S., it would be 98% red. Thing is, the islands of blue spots have many many more voters than the red areas. And, we don't vote by land area in this country; it's still, one man one vote.

Most of these schemes are now dead in the water because of public pressure, and the mainstream media putting it out to the public. Republican governors have come out against these schemes (probably because to try to do it would mean they would be voted out of office-- not for any altruistic reason). Since the GOP has made clear their aim would be to disenfranchise urban voters, I doubt it would survive constitutional muster anyway.
 

Brandon13

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
4,199
Reaction score
2,609
Age
32
Location
Pensacola, FL
Online
If you look at electoral maps....Dems win states because they usially win big cities. Even though most state maps were practically red...the blue spots were where the highly populated areas were....so the smaller communities do tend to get the shaft. I remember the FL map kinda looking that way. SE Fl, TB area, and Orlando were blue....the rest was red and yet...Obama took FL.
And Obama does not win FL without the many votes he received from individuals residing within red areas. It is not simply just rural red vs. urban blue.

How does this proposal not disproportionately negatively affect urban voters who tend to vote Democrat in favor of rural voters who tend to vote Republican? I do not believe that attempting to further lessen the impact of an urban individual's vote will get these Republicans nearly as far as they believe it will.
 

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
10,795
Offline
You're forgetting this part, though:



So, despite winning the popular vote by roughly 5,000,000 votes, Obama would have lost the election under that system.

The electoral system may not be the best, but it will work better than the congressional district system more times than not. Again, I will accept arguments for a more proportional system, but the congressional district system is a more ****ed up version of the current system.
Yes, you could still win the Electoral College without winning the popular vote (just as you can under the current system) although saying that Romney would have won assumes that the candidates would have campaigned exactly the same way even though they would have had to compete for a lot more votes.

Anyway, there is no perfect solution, and I still prefer the Electoral College over a straight popular vote, but the Congressional District system seems like an improvement in the sense that it brings a lot more of the country back into play.
 

FatiusJeebs

The Commish
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,868
Reaction score
844
Location
Clearwater, FL
Offline
That is true. And, if you look at an overall electoral map of the U.S., it would be 98% red. Thing is, the islands of blue spots have many many more voters than the red areas. And, we don't vote by land area in this country; it's still, one man one vote.

Most of these schemes are now dead in the water because of public pressure, and the mainstream media putting it out to the public. Republican governors have come out against these schemes (probably because to try to do it would mean they would be voted out of office-- not for any altruistic reason). Since the GOP has made clear their aim would be to disenfranchise urban voters, I doubt it would survive constitutional muster anyway.
Exactly. We don't vote by land mass but....smaller communities (the red stuff) are being out voted by the larger cities (most of the blue stuff). You can't ignore the fact that small communities are getting screwed right now. So what would be the best way to equally represent all areas?
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
What would the track record be with the district based system?

We have had, i think, 3 elections where the popular vote loser won the election- and all were closer in vote totals than 2012.

The fact that romney would have won given the popular vote totals makes me think the current system is superior
 

BIG E

SR is my life!
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
15,082
Reaction score
31,381
Offline
It's a state issue. 2 states already do it, Nebraska and Maine.
IMO, since electoral votes are based on the number of congressional districts, then it should be awarded by congressional district.
 

bigdaddysaints

BigDaddy Has Arrived
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
7,247
Reaction score
10,559
Age
47
Location
DutchTown
Offline
Exactly. We don't vote by land mass but....smaller communities (the red stuff) are being out voted by the larger cities (most of the blue stuff). You can't ignore the fact that small communities are getting screwed right now. So what would be the best way to equally represent all areas?
so if I live on smalltown, OK, my vote should be worth more than someone who lives in NYC?
the only way to lay rest to this is by popular vote.. just like mayor, Gov, and all.other elected officials..

Sent from my Samsung Infuse using Tapatalk 2
Who Dat!
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,603
Reaction score
20,376
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
What would the track record be with the district based system?

We have had, i think, 3 elections where the popular vote loser won the election- and all were closer in vote totals than 2012.

The fact that romney would have won given the popular vote totals makes me think the current system is superior
I agree. I like the system we have now, even with it's imperfections. Politics is cyclical to some degree, and the pendulum has swung to the middle, and even to the left to some degree. And that's pretty reasonable considering the behavior of a number prominent R's lately. They deserved to lose the 2012 elections. I never was crazy about Romney, let alone the rest of the primary candidate, with the exception of Huntsman.
 

TechDawg09

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
5,764
Location
Dallas
Offline
Exactly. We don't vote by land mass but....smaller communities (the red stuff) are being out voted by the larger cities (most of the blue stuff). You can't ignore the fact that small communities are getting screwed right now. So what would be the best way to equally represent all areas?
Are you more concerned with equally representing all areas or all people?

A vote in small-town Florida counts the same as a vote in Miami, Florida.

Granted a Democrat vote in Miami (blue county) doesn't count the same as a Democrat vote in Dallas (blue county), but the system proposed in Virginia won't change that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom