Douchey, bias article...but interesting. http://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-elec...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
Nope. But I like the idea. I think I said in another thread that they should hand out the electoral votes separately. Far more fair for the voter. I'm not sure I like it by percentage though. The electoral votes should be handed out by geography, not population.
The states can award their electoral votes however they want. I don't mind the system the way it is, but if states want to split votes up, that's also fine.
Yeah I learned this recently. Any state can change its own laws and divvy electoral votes any way it wants, basically. They all just decided on a "winner takes all" system. I guess it favors the stronger party, whichever it is at the time, so both parties feel comfortable with it like that.
Maine & Nebraska already award their electoral votes by congressional districts with the winner of the popular vote getting the 2 electoral votes for the senators
1. Get majority in the state legislature. 2. Gerrymander the districts to favor your party. 3. Change electoral college rules based on those new districts. 4. ????? 5. Profit!!!
The only problem with doing that stuff nationally is that redistricting will become the most powerful tool in deciding elections. It's already a pretty powerful tool, but this will make it insane.
I always thought dispersing the electoral votes by percentage of popular votes was the way to go. In the last election that represents ~23 electoral votes that would have gone Republican just in California. It just seems wrong that those voters aren't represented.
Then you have to think of all the red states that would have lost electoral votes to Obama. Might as well go with a straight popular vote then. And before anyone cries "then we'll have NY and California picking our presidents," they already go blue anyway. The thing is, I don't think the party leaders really want to scrap the system the way it is, it would spread their resources out too much if Democrats actually had to campaign in blue states and Republicans had to in red states. They like being able to pick the 7 or 8 "battleground" states and just hammer them relentlessly. I feel sorry for people that live in those states, they must be constantly bombarded by messages the three months leading up to an election.
Yes, I'm fine with Republicans in red states losing electoral votes. It just makes more sense to me if we more closely represented the voters. Republicans would have picked up 23 electoral votes in the last election if they were distributed that way... that's a swing state just right there. And yes it's ridiculous they only have to campaign in a dozen states.
Romney would have won in a couple of different scenarios: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko#
Why doesn't the GOP concentrate on changing their platform to attract more voters rather than having to rig the system in their favor?
Yup... it's just a Republican thing. Wasn't there a certain mild commotion when Democrats were unhappy with the results of this system a while back?
Not sure where you're going with this . . . you mean split the votes evenly among all the states, like the Senate instead of like the House? Also, I find it hilarious that the Dems are acting like this is the worst thing ever in history, when they wanted the same thing after the 2000 election.
Because then small states would have even less say than they do now. The entire state of South Dakota's vote could be voided by Fresno. Chicago could nullify about half the states in the country. Do you want the fine people of Detroit, Chicago and New York City picking every president?
Discussions or proposals like this come up after every election in one way or another. I don't see any reason for outrage. Handing electoral votes out by congressional district is ok with me.
I wouldn't mind the county system. Too much gerrymandering of the congressional districts to keep it fair that way.
