Rigging the election for beginners

posted at 1:01 pm on January 26, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It’s starting to look as if this may become a reality, at least in some locations. Three states with Republican controlled legislatures which Barack Obama carried in the last election are already looking at a proposals to change their electoral college split from winner takes all to a division by congressional districts. As we’ve previously noted, this would give the GOP a decided advantage in several key states for the next presidential election, even if they once again lost the popular vote.

Nebraska and Maine now award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and the other two to the statewide winner. If other states were to follow this model, it could dramatically change the way Americans elect their president. In the current political climate, it also could put Democrats at a disadvantage in states Obama won but where Republican legislatures drew congressional district lines to maximize GOP performance.

I’ve gone into this before, but everything about this looks bad. It’s not that it’s unconstitutional or illegal in any fashion, but the image is about as horrible as you can get. Granted… this could work. It might even win a presidential election which repeated recent patterns for the Democrats. But at what cost? It seems as if both sides are rushing to either justify or condemn this without any long term consideration. For example, Professor Jacobson.

While awarding electors by congressional district may favor Republicans now in some states, it may favor Democrats in the future, just as the winner take all favors Democrats now. To take a temporal view and declare it “cheating” shows that the accuser is politicizing the issue just as much as the alleged cheaters.

On the other side, Mother Jones seems to feel that it’s the end of the world.

Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they’re doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it’s likely to prompt a backlash.

I don’t think either of these stances addresses the real point here. While perfectly legal, this is such an obvious, national move as to be absurd. The other two states currently doing this EC vote splitting decided on it as a rather odd, unique, grass roots initiative. To suddenly have several swing states launch into it right after losing an election is so clearly a case of national level manipulation that it will further inflame national sentiment against a party which is already sliding in national approval. Is that really how you want to win for one or two cycles? Isn’t it better to make a solid case for conservative values and win on the merits?

Angering the larger public with sleight of hand tricks to take the White House with a losing popular vote margin seems short sighted in the extreme. Most of my arguments against the Electoral College reflect the fact that it distorts the wider public vote. Some hijinks like this could get the Electoral College voted out all the sooner. Maybe it buys you one or two election cycles, but if you really value the EC, the long term fallout could be far worse.

Maine and Nebraska are not, in my opinion, examples to be emulated. They are cautionary tales to be avoided unless it’s done on a national scale. It is, as I previously wrote, a situation with no easy solution. We don’t want to tell the states what to do on their own turf, but when they vote for the President, they are taking part in a national effort. The system would work best if it was standardized – either way – across the country. Or, absent that remedy, just doing away with the electoral college entirely.

On the plus side, Virginia seems to be rejecting it already.

The prospects appear doomed in Virginia this year for Republican-backed legislation that would replace the state’s winner-take-all method of apportioning presidential electoral votes with one that awards one vote to the winner of each congressional district.

Virginia is the first of several states carried in November by President Barack Obama where the Republican-controlled legislature is considering measures to replace the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. The Virginia legislation survived a state Senate subcommittee on a 3-3 vote this week, but two Republicans on the full committee said Friday they would oppose the bill when it comes up for a committee vote next week, effectively killing it.

And should it clear the legislature, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell announced Friday he opposes it. Spokesman J. Tucker Martin said McDonnell, a Republican, “believes Virginia’s system works just fine.”

Florida doesn’t look interested either. I’ll be waiting to see how the other states handle it. This is nothing to rush into.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Embarrassing. This just makes the GOP look even more pathetic. We can’t win a majority so hey, let’s just change the rules so we don’t need a majority to win. A real jump the shark moment in the making. Instead of playing these games why don’t we do something substantive and figure out how to make the case for conservatism so these gimmicks aren’t necessary in the first place?

Mark1971 on January 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

…young Democrats!

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

. It’s not that it’s unconstitutional or illegal in any fashion, but the image is about as horrible as you can get

…whose playbook are we taking that from?

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

This won’t matter when Texas goes blue due to suddenly having millions of additional democrat voters on the rolls after Obama’s done with his Amnesty push.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

I like the idea ….I get tired of philly deciding our elections here in PA

Aggie95 on January 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Is that really how you want to win for one or two cycles? Isn’t it better to make a solid case for conservative values and win on the merits?

And yeah, Jazz, if I thought doing this would change the outcome for one or two election cycles and we could get a real fiscal conservative in, I would absolutely be for it.

The progressives have absolutely no problem doing whatever it takes to win, I don’t care what the optics look like, if this would allow us to actually solve our slide into the abyss, I’d be all for it.

But it won’t.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM

States Rights. If they cannot control the government they created through the current arraignment, they are going to change it so they can.

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Why are Republicans so afraid of winning? Look at what Dems do to get their people elected. Keep fighting fair and our country is sunk.

Wine_N_Dine on January 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

On the other side, Mother Jones seems to feel that it’s the end of the world….I don’t think either of these stances addresses the real point here.

You’re seriously taking into consideration Mother Freakin’ Jones thinks?

This is why we can’t have nice things. The other sides does everything to win, while our establishment is worried about appeasement and image.

sauldalinsky on January 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

while i agree it doesn’t look good but seriously anyone that thinks BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA won the election in a fair way is ignoring a lot. leading up to the election most polls had the race closer then actual results. Romney was drawing crowds much larger then usurper in chief. Don’t forget the the 60 counties in PA that went 100% for the chosen one. and who was it Cutter or Axelrod who said don’t worry about the early results we will be on top at the end of the night. if your not cheating your not trying.

phatfawzi on January 26, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I like the idea ….I get tired of philly deciding our elections here in PA

Aggie95 on January 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM

And I’m sick of Seattle deciding everything for WA. No point in voting for president if you’re a conservative in WA. Either we should do something like this or give the city to Canada.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Is that really how you want to win for one or two cycles? Isn’t it better to make a solid case for conservative values and win on the merits?

Better? Or effective? The current regime goes with effective. I say we try that.

Who cares what the other side thinks about how this looks? I could care less if a bunch of amoral jackals think this is the worst thing ever. I am sick and tired of Ohio and one or two other states determining who the president is. The way it is now, most of the citizenry might as well not even vote.

Lily on January 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

phatfawzi on January 26, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Even in 2008 when I decided to stay home and not vote as a protest against the corporate welfare TARP vote that McCain ensured became law I turned out 15 family members and several coworkers. This time around I am pretty sure I depressed my coworkers vote and I did not even bring up politics at all with my family, even though I did vote for the turd Romney, or more specifically, against Obama.

Therein lies your lost votes I would imagine. Conservatives did not turn out their friends and family as they did in past election.

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I’m all for apportioning the EC votes by percentage of the popular vote in each state. None of this ‘winner take all’. One guy gets 51% of the vote – and gets ALL the state’s EC votes? Guess that other 49% doesn’t count.

Democrats like to drop by Kalifornia and fill up their coffers. Campaign in this state? Why? It’s already sewed up.

GarandFan on January 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Why are Republicans so afraid of winning? Look at what Dems do to get their people elected. Keep fighting fair and our country is sunk.

Wine_N_Dine on January 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Yep. Commenters are afraid this makes us look pathetic? The DNC drives busses to housing projects to scoop up anyone with a pulse and drive them to the polls. They tell black people that Republicans want to enslave them. How pathetic is that? They don’t care. It wins elections.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The way it is now, most of the citizenry might as well not even vote.

Lily on January 26, 2013 at 1:22 PM

They already do not…

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 1:26 PM

I like it. Will help prevent the urban voters from dominating the over all outcome. Their votes have been bought by the liberal progressives thru “hand outs”. Its got to stop.

RandyKowalski on January 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I don’t understand what’s wrong with people actually having their vote count in an election. Why should rural localities in America have their choices made for them by their urban population centers in every election? If you ask me, no blocks of electoral votes should be bigger than 5.

Murf76 on January 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

They tell black people that Republicans want to enslave them. How pathetic is that?

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

They do… They want to keep the welfare state in effect and make the blacks get to work paying taxes to support the welfare state. Other people’s children forced to give up over 15.4% of their wealth creation to old people, and that number is going to be going up. That is slavery my friend. Anyone who supports keeping social security and medicare are in fact slave drivers.

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Actually, in spite of Jazz’s, this is a very good idea. It would cause teh electoral vote to more closely approximate the popular vote, and would force Presidential candidates to actually campaign outside the big states. At present, a few states control the election of the President, and this is very unhealthy. Vice the VA Gov, the present system is quickly breaking down and it needs to be fixed. Going to a purely popular vote will cause a complete breakdown of the system as just a small number of high population areas will elect POTUS. It makes election rigging much easier. Just remember the returns from Philadelphia and that is the future of no action, or a pure popular vote. Electoral votes awarded on the basis of congressional district is an excellent choice.

Quartermaster on January 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I Live in Michigan…. If our State’s electoral vote went by County…. We would be a RED State. Lets do it!!!!

RandyKowalski on January 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Other people’s children forced to give up over 15.4% of their wealth creation to old people, and that number is going to be going up. That is slavery my friend. Anyone who supports keeping social security and medicare are in fact slave drivers.

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Yeah, that’s what irks be a lot about the fiscal conservative types who say don’t touch SS and medicare.

Why not? Because people were promised benefits? Well guess who else was promised benefits? Me.

You paid in longer? True, and maybe you’ve even paid in more to date (or maybe you were a housewife that never had a job). But I will be paying the bills for SS and Medicare for the REST OF MY LIFE for a “benefit” that you will enjoy, but seems mathematically impossible for me to enjoy.

So instead of saving that 12% of my income for MY retirement, I have to pay for your retirement. Plus, my income taxes (state & federal) keep going up, as do my property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, sin taxes, and everything else.

So who’s really getting screwed here? The people who set up the system and got the benefits, or the ones forced to pay for it?

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

my vote was the same way, it was against obama and not for romney.

phatfawzi on January 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

In 2012 1.5 million illegal votes were cast for Obama in the State of California alone. Obama only won by 3.8 million votes, half of which as I said above were illegally cast in California. A legal change in the distribution of electoral votes is not election rigging.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I’m still not certain why we even have an electoral college system. It’s not 1789, nobody is voting for wise electors to make our decisions for us.

urban elitist on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

And it’s not “Rigging the election.” It’s state’s rights.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

All this analysis is based on logic and rationales of old. The modern democrat party is comprised of political terrorists, not rational or logical people. They are achieving a means to end, regardless of the law, truth, honor, integrity, and our future.

Fighting the Democrats based on how things should be or used to be is not a strategy. If you want to rebuild the high road, you’re going to need to win some elections first.

HopeHeFails on January 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I Live in Michigan…. If our State’s electoral vote went by County…. We would be a RED State. Lets do it!!!!

RandyKowalski on January 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

…Detroit?…Flint?…oh wait!…the rest of the state needs them to decide the whole outcome!…we need to become one big farm and move to those two cities!

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 1:38 PM

In 2012 1.5 million illegal votes were cast for Obama in the State of California alone. Obama only won by 3.8 million votes, half of which as I said above were illegally cast in California. A legal change in the distribution of electoral votes is not election rigging.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

There is no way to know, for sure, how many illegal votes are cast in any election. How many people vote under their friends names, vote twice, vote under dead peoples names, etc.

I’m still not certain why we even have an electoral college system. It’s not 1789, nobody is voting for wise electors to make our decisions for us.

urban elitist on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Because with a popular vote, small (population-wise) states and all rural areas will have zero say in presidential elections, while cities with large populations will have complete control.

But, I mean, whatever, I think the momentum is running with the D’s no matter how we apportion votes.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

19,605 votes for Obama in 59 Philadelphia districts and zero for Romney bothers me. Legally changing laws, not so much.

STL_Vet on January 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I’m all for apportioning the EC votes by percentage of the popular vote in each state. None of this ‘winner take all’. One guy gets 51% of the vote – and gets ALL the state’s EC votes? Guess that other 49% doesn’t count.

Democrats like to drop by Kalifornia and fill up their coffers. Campaign in this state? Why? It’s already sewed up.

GarandFan on January 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

If California adopts this, the Democrats would never win California again. California has 55 Congressional districts, only 9 of them are majority Democrat. They are the 9 highest population density districts in the state though and account for approximately 51% of the states population. Democrats only represent 44% of California’s population.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

If every state did this, we would be one step closer to mob rule. The electoral college is there as a buffer against mob rule, as is the Senate.

Believe me — this would come back and bite us squarely on the ass.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Embarrassing. This just makes the GOP look even more pathetic. We can’t win a majority so hey, let’s just change the rules so we don’t need a majority to win. A real jump the shark moment in the making. Instead of playing these games why don’t we do something substantive and figure out how to make the case for conservatism so these gimmicks aren’t necessary in the first place?

Mark1971 on January 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM

In order to have a chance a winning the next Presidential elections we need at least 65% of Whites voting for us and at least 35% of Hispanics… Those are the facts… In 2012 we won 59% of Whites (the highest since 1984) and only 27% of Hispanics… How are we going to do this?…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Whatever is done won’t matter if the issue of the tabulation of votes and the possibility of electronic manipulation of votes is not addressed in the next 4 years.

It’s not even being thought of right now, in favor of..guns..war on women..abortion..”racism”..gay marriage..coke vs. pepsi…confetti or balloons…etc.
There is a good chance that we’re doomed as a free country. The people on our side seem to be too gullible to the distractions and con jobs of the left.

Mimzey on January 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM


MeanWhile……………………….

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell opposes changing Electoral College, spokesman says – @kasie

22 hours ago from twitter.com/kasie by editor

At least 2 Republican state senators say they oppose Virginia Electoral College bill – @AP

23 hours ago from bigstory.ap.org by editor

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gop-senators-will-oppose-va-electoral-change
===================

Former RNC chair Haley Barbour says ‘Republican conspiracy’ on Electoral College overblown – MSNBC interview via @TPM

23 hours ago from livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com by editor

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/haley-barbour-republican-conspiracy-on-electoral-college-overblown
===========================================

canopfor on January 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Sorry Jazz, I’m not with you on this one

it will further inflame national sentiment against a party which is already sliding in national approval.

Seriously? Two points. First is that it is better to win and be hated than a lovable loser. Second is that the overwhelming majority of the world doesnt pay attention to the names of politicians much less the intricacies of the electoral college. (Remember that big backlash against Dems when they tried this after Bush? Me either.)

Isn’t it better to make a solid case for conservative values and win on the merits?

You say it is if adjusting electoral college voters and making a solid case for conservative values are mutually exclusive. Both can and should be done.

I havent even brought up how it might contain the effects of voter fraud…this seems like a no brainer to me.

ChrisL on January 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

If every state did this, we would be one step closer to mob rule. The electoral college is there as a buffer against mob rule, as is the Senate.

Believe me — this would come back and bite us squarely on the ass.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Allocating electoral votes in each state by congressional districts in not a violation of the electoral college, in fact it fits it perfectly… The only thing that violates the electoral college is the winner of the national popular vote only as the the winner of the elections…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Those are the facts… In 2012 we won 59% of Whites (the highest since 1984) and only 27% of Hispanics… How are we going to do this?…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:43 PM

We aren’t. I think 59% of whites is almost definitely about the ceiling that we can get, and that 27% will continue to drop as Obama legalizes socialism loving illegal immigrants.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Jazz Shaw… The title of your article is as dumb as you are… “Rigging” the elections by allocating electoral votes on Congressional districts? Really?… You are an idiot…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Jazz Shaw… The title of your article is as dumb as you are… “Rigging” the elections by allocating electoral votes on Congressional districts? Really?… You are an idiot…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

When I saw the headline, I thought it was going to be an anti- amnesty post. If we’re going to talk about rigging elections, how about the democrats cynical attempt to legalize millions of poor uneducated illegal immigrants in order to expand their voter base?

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM

We aren’t. I think 59% of whites is almost definitely about the ceiling that we can get, and that 27% will continue to drop as Obama legalizes socialism loving illegal immigrants.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

There is a solution… Riling up the producers against the Welfare state… Making the Welfare queens and kings the face, heart, and soul of the democrat party… Obamaphone woman and all… Nothing will rile up the producers than seeing their hard earned money going toward the parasites of the welfare state…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Stop and think for a minute….

How many of you guys live in big cities or the suburbs?
I used to live in California. It’s a pretty nice place except for a 10 mile toilet down the coast. That little strip pretty much wags the whole state. It’s controlled by big machine politicians.

Look at New York. Again it’s a really nice place except for this large cesspool on the Hudson. The place is synonymous with machine politics. It wags the state.

Go around the country and think about it. The big cities are the problem. You want to talk about mob rule that’s where the mobs are.

That’s also where the LIV’s live, the dead voters vote, etc ..

Look at Europe and you find the same thing. The BIG CITIES wag the places. Who ever has the machines that control the biggest cities, WINS!!

Now think about individual freedom vs intrusive over weaning government. Where is the most of it? Big Cities. Where are the unions strongest? Big Cities.

Are you getting the picture yet? By letting the big cities take all then the Statist Collectivists take all.

This needs to be stopped. Politics is local (or at least it should be.) It’s time to stop disenfranchising most of America.

CrazyGene on January 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

When I saw the headline, I thought it was going to be an anti- amnesty post. If we’re going to talk about rigging elections, how about the democrats cynical attempt to legalize millions of poor uneducated illegal immigrants in order to expand their voter base?

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Yes and how about rigging the elections using the “early voting” crap?… This is the ultimate way to rig the elections…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I like the idea … . I get tired of philly deciding our elections here in PA

Aggie95 on January 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Agreed. Pennsylvania Dems have been getting their panties in a wad over this ever since it was broached last year. If not for the fourteen counties in PA deciding the vote for Obama, this would be a red state.

PatriotGal2257 on January 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Personally, I think this new strategy is a win-win and more inherently fair. After all, Democrats are going to demonize Republicans no matter what they do anyway. Democrats have a distinct advantage now with the electoral college, so evening the playing field just makes sense. If this is not done, there will never be another Republican again anyway. We have already tipped the scale with the demographics. There are more people expecting a handout than are willing to work.

The reason there has not been a collective voice against all that is happening in Washington is that there are way more people out there with their hands out than was originally thought. The country has a population of about 315 million people (U.S. Census Bureau). Almost a quarter of that number are people below the age of 18, so they are still kids. That means the U.S. population of adults is 236 million people.

From that number (236,000,000), blacks make up 13.1% of the population in this country, so that is about 39,000,000 people.
Hispanics make up 16.7% and the Census Bureau always under counts
them. That is at least an additional 50,000,000 people. When we
throw in all those people who have given up looking for work or who
can only get part time jobs, we can easily add another 20,000,000 to the total.

Adding these numbers up: 39 + 50 + 20 million = 109 million. Throw in a large percentage of the white population who are in poverty and vote Democratic (prob larger), we can probably add about another 20 – 30 million to the total. Our grand total now grows to a staggering 139 million people.

139 million people is 59% of our population out of 236 million
working adults. Those of us who are working can complain all day,
but the administration and the press will not report anything about
how the rest of us feel or what we want to happen.

Democrats already have a distinct advantage and it is only going to improve for them under the current rules. I thought the idea of the EC was to prevent the big states in the early days from having an advantage when it comes to sending delegates to Washington. Today, CA can have 58 electoral votes to offset about 15 other states’ wishes. How is that even remotely fair? A Democratic candidate now starts out with over a 100 electoral college votes before he/she even starts campaigning. They just need 170 more to win in any election.

donn1e on January 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

BTW…not necessarily directed at Jazz personally…why is it so awful that Republicans are even talking about this when Dems have long advocated getting rid of electoral college completely?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109677/lets-abolish-the-electoral-college
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171115/its-time-end-electoral-college#
http://www.alternet.org/story/10089/scrap_the_electoral_college
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101784215

Oh look…even Mother Jones hated the whole concept of the electoral college when it was hurting the Dems

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college

ChrisL on January 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM

The reason the Democrats don’t like this is that as the system stands today, the largest metro area in a state controls the electoral votes for that state in the majority of cases. This gives all of the political power to the political machine of that metro area. Democrats control most of the metro machines. Look at the electoral maps by county for Illinois and Pennsylvania to see how the vast majority of the state is disenfranchised by the current system.

I don’t favor a “per district” system, but I DO favor a system that splits the vote according to the proportion of popular vote within that state but not by district lines. The weight of the voices of the people should be accounted for in their proportion of the vote.

crosspatch on January 26, 2013 at 2:03 PM

So … the Democrats really do cheat in key districts where there’s 140% turnout, and that somehow doesn’t look bad for the Democrats.

But states do something perfectly legal which may or may not favor the GOP now and in the future, and you’re worried that will make the GOP look like it’s cheating and make the GOP look bad.

Makes sense to me.

The Rogue Tomato on January 26, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I’m still not certain why we even have an electoral college system. It’s not 1789, nobody is voting for wise electors to make our decisions for us.

urban elitist on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

We have it because we’re not a democracy and abolishing the EC would leave most states at the mercy of those with the largest populations. That was not how the country was formed and, personally, I’m getting ready to finally leave Gotham for Galt’s Gulch and, frankly, I don’t want to be subject to the whims of New York Proggies any longer.

I think the people of Iowa and South Carolina deserve to be heard and appealed to by those that wish to be President as much as citizens in California and New York. Without the EC, candidates would only campaign in states like CA, NY, FL, and TX.

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 2:11 PM

This is unbelievably stupid. But, at the same time, the best idea that the GOP has. Which tells you everything you need to know about the GOP.

besser tot als rot on January 26, 2013 at 2:14 PM

nobody is voting for wise electors to make our decisions for us.

urban elitist on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Each state can create its own rules relative to electors and the division of electoral votes. Many require the electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote of their citizens. The people of the state CAN and DO vote for “wise electors” through their elections of legislators. If you do not like how your state rules apply to the EC, then the way to change it is to elect people that will write the laws as you want.

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I’m still not certain why we even have an electoral college system. It’s not 1789, nobody is voting for wise electors to make our decisions for us.
urban elitist on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

The reason for the electoral college is the same as it was in 1789, and the considerations are no less compelling. And your description of what the EC was in 1789 is a lie.

besser tot als rot on January 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Seriously? Two points.

ChrisL on January 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Yep. Sick and tired of Republicans buying into the doom and gloom. We won in 2000, 2002, 2004 & 2010. We lost in 2006, 2008 & 2012. Somehow that spells the death of the party to some around here which is nothing more than repeating the Dems talking points. The Dems didn’t talk like this in 2000, 2002, 2004 or 2010. They just got more passionate and more fired up….and won.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM

The Republicans won 82.3% of all the counties in the U.S. but lost the election by population.

Those include those place where there was the crazy turnout numbers the press ignores.

We’ve seen the danger Jefferson talked about where centers of population overwhelm the broad expanse of the country.

I don’t know the answer to this, but somehow one city in a state should not control the direction of the country.

itsspideyman on January 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

There is a solution… Riling up the producers against the Welfare state… Making the Welfare queens and kings the face, heart, and soul of the democrat party… Obamaphone woman and all… Nothing will rile up the producers than seeing their hard earned money going toward the parasites of the welfare state…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

You seem to be under the impression that the producers are 1) in any way united (my companies CEO is a big time lib) and 2) that they out number the progressive voters.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Personally, I think this new strategy is a win-win and more inherently fair. After all, Democrats are going to demonize Republicans no matter what they do anyway.

donn1e on January 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Amen. So tired of Republicans lecturing us on “optics.” Remember Akin? Remember how the RNC dropped him like a hot potato? Remember how they apologized for him until blue in the face? Remember how they handed over a Senate seat to the Dems hoping it would make us look better?

How’d that work out? The MSM ignored RNC’s statements and they and the DNC spent the next six months painting Republican candidates as ignorant rape enthusiasts.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM

This is worth looking at.
Congressional districts are larger than most states years ago.
It would seriously impact gerrymandering. Protecting a congressional seat might cost you up to three presidential electoral votes.
The two senatorial votes could remain statewide winner take all.
Advertising and appearances would have to be spent statewide in close districts. It would remove advertising from large locked up urban areas for both parties.
Making deals with the likes of Acorn and Unions, et al because of their concentration in the urban areas would be diluted.

In Nevada which is now blue we have five votes.
It would work three D and two R. Going red would be four R and one D. What it would do in the end is dilute the Las Vegas gerrymandering and force the rest of the state to be paid attention to. That would force a broader base for all concentrated districts or concede the others to the other party.
I am not sold on it but it is worth looking into.

CW20 on January 26, 2013 at 2:25 PM

We won in 2000, 2002, 2004 & 2010. We lost in 2006, 2008 & 2012. Somehow that spells the death of the party to some around here which is nothing more than repeating the Dems talking points. The Dems didn’t talk like this in 2000, 2002, 2004 or 2010. They just got more passionate and more fired up….and won.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM

See, that’s the thing. Republicans won in ’00, ’02 and ’04, but not conservatives. Big spending “compassionate conservatives” who governed as fiscally irresponsible progressives, bringing us such classics as No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, the PATRIOT Act, etc.

2010 was supposed to be about blocking the progressive agenda. Unfortunately nothing actually changed from that election, the progressive R’s still run the party and Washington.

If you believe that politicians are just the reflection of their voters, then clearly you can see which direction this is going on.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Those are the facts… In 2012 we won 59% of Whites (the highest since 1984) and only 27% of Hispanics… How are we going to do this?…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Motivate the 40% of dimwits intelligent deep thinkers who sat out the election to grow up participate next cycle.

Mimzey on January 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

This wouldn’t even be a question if so many Republicans hadn’t stayed home to “make a point” about Romney, or whatever. We have enough votes to overcome Dem cheating, but not if we don’t turn out. Thanks for nothing, you sanctimonious jerks. And if you DID stay home because Romney wasn’t your perfect candidate you can STFU for the next four years. It’s called cutting your nose off to spite your face.

teacherman on January 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

You seem to be under the impression that the producers are 1) in any way united (my companies CEO is a big time lib) and 2) that they out number the progressive voters.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Of course not all producers are Republicans but a majority of them are… Romney won the majority of those who make over $ 50,000 a year i.e. those who pay 95% of the total taxes and Obama won the majority of those who make less than $ 50,000 a year and only pay 5% of the total income tax…

4 millions Obama voters from 2008 stayed home in 2012… These voters were sick of Obama but were not motivated to vote for Romney… Declaring war against the parasites and Welfare queens and kings will work to get them to vote for our side and we can bring millions more on our side by riling up against the Welfare State… Elections should not only be fought on principles but on emotions as well… The war against the Welfare State is certainly about principles but it has the a very powerful emotional aspect to bring more producers to vote for our side… Call it the Revenge of the Producers… Vote for Revenge…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 2:34 PM

teacherman on January 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

You offered us Romney.
The architect of Obamacare.
The man who first used John Holdren for advice. You know, the Malthusian…
The man who said offshore energy production should be shut down.
The man who called coal fired power plants people killers.
The man who thought bailing out the auto companies was a good thing and took credit for the idea he gave Obama to do it.
The man who called Obama a nice guy.
The man who promised to make certain that social security and medicare are here for ever.

In effect, you offered something only marginally better than Obama for the nation as a whole, but eminently more destructive to conservatism than Obama.

feel free to offer up a conservative next time.

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Allocating electoral votes in each state by congressional districts in not a violation of the electoral college, in fact it fits it perfectly… The only thing that violates the electoral college is the winner of the national popular vote only as the the winner of the elections…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

If all electors are allocated on a District by District basis, the effectiveness of the electoral college system becomes impossibly diluted, and it would be basically no different than just counting all the votes without even having the EC.

P.S. Name-calling directed at the HA staff is rather tacky, and not a very useful debating tactic either.

hillbillyjim on January 26, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I don’t know the answer to this, but somehow one city in a state should not control the direction of the country.

itsspideyman on January 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I used to drive from Tacoma to just south of Seattle via I-5 on a regular basis for work. I’d do my best to avoid rush hour because I-5 would turn into a parking lot, turning a 30 minute commute into an hour or more easy.

One Monday morning I had to run up there during rush hour and was dreading it. But when I got to the freeway it was empty. You literally could have roller-skated on it. It was like a scene from The Omega Man.

At first I was startled. Then I remembered — it was a government holiday. Not a holiday that business got off, just government workers.

I had never previously realized how many of my fellow citizens were dependent on bloated government for their jobs. It was amazing.

Add to all of those government workers the University of Washington, union workers at Boeing and government-aid recipients, and Seattle steers Washington politics, and government’s hand is on the wheel.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

We won in 2000, 2002, 2004 & 2010. We lost in 2006, 2008 & 2012. Somehow that spells the death of the party to some around here which is nothing more than repeating the Dems talking points. The Dems didn’t talk like this in 2000, 2002, 2004 or 2010. They just got more passionate and more fired up….and won.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Excellent point… I am always optimistic… The crazy thinking about some on our side that we are not going to win another elections ever again is beyond stupid and insulting…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

If you believe that politicians are just the reflection of their voters, then clearly you can see which direction this is going on.

Timin203 on January 26, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I understand, but the topic was electoral politics not ideology of the party. I am one who believes that if Republicans weren’t so worried about how they look, so cowed by the MSM. If the party actually stood up for conservative principles unashamed, that they’d do a lot better in both winning elections and reforming government.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Romney won the majority of those who make over $ 50,000 a year i.e. those who pay 95% of the total taxes and Obama won the majority of those who make less than $ 50,000 a year and only pay 5% of the total income tax…

Are college students and the youth vote leaching off America? Those voters earn under $50k a year and are overwhelmingly Democrat. It’s also the fact that most of the great entrepreneur – capitalists vote progressive. The corporate drones of American may earn a good salary but aren’t actually responsible for the great innovations that produce jobs. If you take out the Walton’s inherited wealth, the clear majority of top producers lean left:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Excellent point… I am always optimistic… The crazy thinking about some on our side that we are not going to win another elections ever again is beyond stupid and insulting…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Right. When the Dems lose it makes them fight harder. Perhaps because the struggle gives their life meaning, I don’t know. But read, for instance, articles in gay magazines in the ’70s or ’80s (just don’t look at the ads). They suffered loss after loss, but they didn’t give up. They didn’t quote stats all the time about how badly they were losing. They just fought harder.

Conservatives tend to do the opposite it seems.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:47 PM

In effect, you offered something only marginally better than Obama for the nation as a whole, but eminently more destructive to conservatism than Obama.

feel free to offer up a conservative next time.

astonerii on January 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM

BINGO! They keep offering up these moderate candidates and then, when they lose, declare that “Conservatism in America is Dead! We must moderate more!”

Sick.of.it.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Are college students and the youth vote leaching off America?

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Yes and yes. Next.

29Victor on January 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Are college students and the youth vote leaching off America? Those voters earn under $50k a year and are overwhelmingly Democrat. It’s also the fact that most of the great entrepreneur – capitalists vote progressive. The corporate drones of American may earn a good salary but aren’t actually responsible for the great innovations that produce jobs. If you take out the Walton’s inherited wealth, the clear majority of top producers lean left:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Communist scum low IQ bayam…Most college students do not work and are leaching of their parents… Most youth 18-29 are either leaching on their parents or on tax payers expense…

Now you always come here and tell us that Microsoft, Apple, Google, and an many in high tech industries lean left but it does not change the fact that most producers vote Republicans and the super vast majority of parasites vote democrat…

Here is a statistic for you low IQ communist scum and slave of the state regarding vote by income, there is no debate who the majority of producers and pay 95% of the tax voted for, they voted for Romney…

http://www.statista.com/statistics/245889/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-income/

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

As one of the unfortunate Pennsylvanians who is held hostage by the Democratic machine of Philly and its communist zombies, id be in favor of something being done that is more representative of the people of my state.

I hate allowing that criminal enterprise consumed by corruption and a history of voter fraud to continue to suck the rest of the state dry like a starving parasite. How is that is akin to anything the founder’s wanted?

We must use the system, as long as its constitutional, to win, to save this country. I dont care about the optics, i care about the results. I care about freedom.

The Democrats illegally game the system, win and then destroy liberty, and we are worried about optics?

As for getting rid of the electoral college….that is moronic. Why would you think inflicting the whole country with what Pennsylvania suffers under, is a good idea? Yeah, lets give Detroit, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Miami, Los Angeles and New York City, the power to control to the White House, because thats about all it would take to win the popular vote….especially when those places somehow end up with 90% turnout and a 90% vote for the Democrat.

Im done worrying about how things look. If we dont turn things around now, the country is over…..if it isnt already too late.

alecj on January 26, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Don’t understand the objection to this at all. One, the GOP would probably fish more EV votes out of CA than the dims could pull out of TX. Two, as someone pointed out above, the dim ballot stuffing happens in the big ities. Stuffing the ballot box in Cleveland and Philly will get them those districts plus the two at large votes, but not the whole state.

Finally I’m also getting tired of the defeatism. When you run Romneycare against 0bamacare, guess which is going to win? When you run a democrat vs. a democrat, the democrat will win every time. Romney mismanaged the hell out of that campaign and sat on imaginary lead. If anyone other than 0bama had been Romney’s opponent, we probably be saying that we dogged a bullet in not electing someone who could have such a fundamental misread of a situation.

Lou Budvis on January 26, 2013 at 3:01 PM

This needs to be addressed before anything else.

PatriotGal2257 on January 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM

By the way let us look at the Left wing businessmen and see what a bunch of hypocrites they are… They worship money and profit more than anyone else and they find every loophole under the sun to pay less taxes…

Apple and Microsoft: Use slave labor in China and India to make huge profits…
Facebook: Their so called founder is a thief who stole the Facebook idea…
Warren Buffet: Suing the IRS because he does not want one of his companies to pay 1 billion dollars in taxes…
Google: Sheltered 10 billion dollars of income overseas to avoid paying taxes on it…
I will add to the “left wing businessmen list” the Limousine Liberals who control Wall Street and are making record profits because Obama and the Federal Reserve have been printing trillion of dollar at the nation peril and lend it a Zero interest to the Limousine liberal at Wall Street and the Limousine liberals are making record profits because of this…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Apes, Pigs, and F-16s

M2RB: Jethro Tull

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Are college students and the youth vote leaching off America?

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

…can tell you’ve been around!

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

JS, I’m going to accuse you of pumping for the establishment. The GOPe doesn’t want to see a republic form of representation at the state level. A democratic form is preferable as it is easier to control a 51% outcome statewide than 51% at every CD. Heaven forbid a rogue gets 49% and half minus one of the ECVs or delegates in the primaries. Consequently you argue against it as if it will come back to bite us for being racists. BS! !! Once the rurals are franchised, they will never give up this power for the winner takes all. So your LIE about only getting us a cycle or two is only aimed at saving your precious establishment. It’s also premised on the statist view that votes are zero sum. Well that’s your argument anyway and I really doubt you believe it because it a comes back to the GOPe retaining max power.

Don’t worry, I come to read you every time to get a pulse on the GOPe by the BS you spew. Admit it, it’s BS or you’re naive but you ain’t no conservative!

AH_C on January 26, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I disagree. I think we need to go to a proportional EC per state. It gives motivation for people to vote in states that have no chance of going to their candidate because now that state could still supply a EC vote or two. It also prevents a few states from holding the entire nation hostage over an issue, as Iowa has found out and used to keep the farm cash rolling in from the government. Another good thing it would do would be to force presidential candidates to actually go to other parts of the country to campaign other than just a few swing states. Now there would be swing districts and areas of states, also the GOV would now matter for Republicans in Western Pennsylvania, Western New York, Western Maryland, etc.

In general it will be good for this country. The founding fathers never figured that a few states could cripple the entire country with their “needs” for government cash from the rest of the states. They also never figured the urban centers would gain that kind of influence. Remember when the founding fathers came up with this system not every adult had the vote. Basically only white male property owners could vote. Not mass urban political machines going down to a senior center and busing people to the voting place in order to vote for one party.

William Eaton on January 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM

27 die in Egypt riot after soccer violence verdict…

#SoccerViolenceVerdictControlNow

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM

It’s not that it’s unconstitutional or illegal in any fashion, but the image is about as horrible as you can get.

I like how the angst over this matches that given to the National Popular Vote idea.

Oh, wait…

Physics Geek on January 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM

You’re seriously taking into consideration Mother Freakin’ Jones thinks?

This is why we can’t have nice things. The other sides does everything to win, while our establishment is worried about appeasement and image.

sauldalinsky on January 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

A-Freaking-men

The Notorious G.O.P on January 26, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Because that abortive idea was birthed after 2000, when the Dems won the popular vote, but lost the EC. Obviously a horrible idea which has been lambasted regularly by the press since, um, never. Want to see the mental disconnect? I give you the MJ article linked above:

Democrats don’t have the votes to fight back with anything similar, but they do have another weapon in their back pocket: the National Popular Vote interstate compact, an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. If states with more than half of all electoral votes sign up for this, it goes into effect.

So far, only nine states with a total of 132 electoral votes have signed up. But if Republicans continue their patently shameful effort to game the Electoral College system, it might spur more states to sign up.

There are different levels of dishonest bullshittery and hypocrisy. That article by Drum exemplifies the lowest level of each.

Physics Geek on January 26, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Interesting.

Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM

The founding fathers never figured that a few states could cripple the entire country with their “needs” for government cash from the rest of the states.

True, the southern states generally take far more in federal spending than they contribute in federal taxes. If you were to free NY, New Jersey, California, Texas, Washington, and other states where most of the innovation and wealth creation occurs, there might be a brighter future for everyone.
In short, free up the resources of the producer states to produce and stop redirecting their revenue to those struggling to keep up.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

This wouldn’t even be a question if so many Republicans hadn’t stayed home to “make a point” about Romney, or whatever. We have enough votes to overcome Dem cheating, but not if we don’t turn out. Thanks for nothing, you sanctimonious jerks. And if you DID stay home because Romney wasn’t your perfect candidate you can STFU for the next four years. It’s called cutting your nose off to spite your face.teacherman on January 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

No. You can shut up for the next four years because you bought the electability lie, hook line and sinner. We who did vote saved you from installing the managerial candidate from the right as it were.

Yeah I’m hyperbolic in a way but when you rant about us as if we have no right, you’re out of line with just what a vote represents.

In other words you have to accept our reasons for not voting for mittness. Then you have to figure out whether you’ll meet us or ignore our positions. But no matter what our votes matter and have been since 1992 when it comes to electing squishes. Dubya almost didn’t make it either but managed to con us with Jesus being his favorite philosopher and compassionate conservative. If the donks hadn’t overreached with their October surprise about drunk driving we probably would have been looking at president gore and Clinton instead of Oboobi and maybe the GOP really would have acted as the opposition instead of gleefully pillaging the treasury under cover of Dubya. think about that!! My vote is exactly what it represents, a vote for neither, regardless of political outcome. It’s that simple. And your vote for mittness was a vote for BOHICA w/KY Jelly, while Oboobi promised nothing for your easement.

AH_C on January 26, 2013 at 3:50 PM

True, the southern states generally take far more in federal spending than they contribute in federal taxes. If you were to free NY, New Jersey, California, Texas, Washington, and other states where most of the innovation and wealth creation occurs, there might be a brighter future for everyone.
In short, free up the resources of the producer states to produce and stop redirecting their revenue to those struggling to keep up.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Low IQ communist scum… Lot of parasite democrat voters live in Red States as well… The majority of the producers who make more than $ 50,000 a year and pay over 95% of the total taxes voted for Romney… The majority of the voters who make less $ 50,000 a year and pay less than 5% of the total taxes votes for Obama…

http://www.statista.com/statistics/245889/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-income/

In addition the super vast majority of the parasites who depend 100% on the producers voted for Obama…

Your communist party motto is very simple: Take from the producers and give to the parasites so the parasites will vote for your party… It is that simple…

Now go and f*** yourself low IQ communist scum and slave of the state…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Sinner should be sinker but…

AH_C on January 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Now go and f*** yourself low IQ communist scum and slave of the state…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Keep it classy. It’s telling that you don’t employ the rhetorical devices or language of the Founding Fathers or even Reagan but instead take the screeching all-out attack language of the Marxists and adopt it as your own. At least you make it clear where your true sympathies lie.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I’m fine with it. And no, it’s not fair.

Harry Reid is throwing the filibuster, an institution of the American legislative process for over 200 years into the garbage. We’re not going to win fighting fair.

Democracy is garbage. Churchill wasn’t just being a wag when he said it was the least bad system of government. It’s as bad as every other system of government except it’s less efficient at being bad. But finally, after 220 years, democracy has just about managed to eliminate the restraints that have kept the natural thirst for power of the ambitious entombed. If the very premise of democratic government is not rolled back to the point where it must justify everything it does, we’ve come to the end.

Furthermore, there have only ever been 2 elections ever where these moves would have made a difference.

HitNRun on January 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Keep it classy. It’s telling that you don’t employ the rhetorical devices or language of the Founding Fathers or even Reagan but instead take the screeching all-out attack language of the Marxists and adopt it as your own. At least you make it clear where your true sympathies lie.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

The only way to address you communist scums is to put you down wit the right words… I showed you that the majority of producers who pay over 95% of all the taxes voted for Romney but you are denying the fact and truth and you have been spinning and lying…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Pressing Question Of The Day; Do Juice Boxes Make You Gay?

And, if you don’t drink juice from boxes, don’t you get too smug. According to our favourite conspiracy theorist, the government is also turning people gay through the use of MSG in Kettle Chips and fluoride in spring water.

M2RB: Crazy Like Alex Jones

Resist We Much on January 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Keep it classy. It’s telling that you don’t employ the rhetorical devices or language of the Founding Fathers or even Reagan but instead take the screeching all-out attack language of the Marxists and adopt it as your own. At least you make it clear where your true sympathies lie.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

If you want to sell your soul and become a zombie for the state, go right ahead but if you think the 60 million people who voted for Romney are going to go quietly, you’ve got another thing coming.

jawkneemusic on January 26, 2013 at 4:17 PM

It’s unfair to those who live in conservative districts in California to not have their voted counted because the ghettos overwhelmingly hand the entire state to their slave masters.

jawkneemusic on January 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Typical RINO whining. The LEFT is effectively perpetuating a large scale voter fraud operation as PART of their campaign, and us conservatives as usual always have to “play nice” don’t cause waves. When will conservatives LEARN that the LEFT does not play nice. And if we are to win, we have to get in to the gutter with them. It’s sad, but it’s REALITY.

Raquel Pinkbullet on January 26, 2013 at 4:21 PM

I showed you that the majority of producers who pay over 95% of all the taxes voted for Romney but you are denying the fact and truth and you have been spinning and lying…

mnjg on January 26, 2013 at 4:12 PM

A majority of less than 10% while the greatest wealth producers vote for left-leaning candidates.
Forbes is not Pravda. SpaceX is not socialist.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Look, if the legislature wants to do this, they can do this.

They can even eliminate the popular vote altogether should they so choose and send electors to vote for the person of the Legislature’s choice.

Until 1820 only Six States had a Popular vote to determine who the Electors would vote for.

The purpose for the Electoral College is to provide ALL of the states with a voice in the process of selecting the Chief Executive.

jaydee_007 on January 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM

We just need to wait out a few cycles, and brown-black racism will split the democratic base: Attack on Family in Compton Latest Incident in Wave of Anti-Black Violence

What will happen to whites and blacks in California when that state becomes solidly hispanic? Will they even want to remain a part of the USA? What if they table a separatist Proposition and it passes?

slickwillie2001 on January 26, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Look, if the legislature wants to do this, they can do this.

They can even eliminate the popular vote altogether should they so choose and send electors to vote for the person of the Legislature’s choice.

You’re overlooking the second and third degree outcomes.

Where EC changes are made to affect the outcome of the presidential election, the prevailing majority in the state legislation will dictate how the vote is counted from one election to the next. Where the GOP changes the vote today by its legislative majority, the Dems will reverse the change upon winning the state back.

You’ll see big money politics transform state elections, as those races will become the key to winning nationwide office.

The entire EC system will lose much of its legitimacy and US democracy will be widely mocked around the world as hardly above what you find in banana republics. Much of this country’s moral authority and soft power as the world’s great democracy will be lost as well.

bayam on January 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2