New GOP plan: Ending winner-take-all for states in presidential elections
Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party’s majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.
Already, two states — Maine and Nebraska — award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. The candidate who wins the most votes statewide takes the final two at-large electoral votes. Only once, when President Obama won a congressional district based in Omaha in 2008, has either of those states actually split their vote.
But if more reliably blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were to award their electoral votes proportionally, Republicans would be able to eat into what has become a deep Democratic advantage.
All three states have given the Democratic nominee their electoral votes in each of the last six presidential elections. Now, senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in all three states to end the winner-take-all system.
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
Wake me when the New GOP plan is to
DISAVOW DEBATES MODERATED BY LEFTISTS.
ToddPA on December 17, 2012 at 2:17 PM
They haven’t said anything about closing primaries either.
sharrukin on December 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Why not a national popular vote?
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Looking at the national results by county the vast majority of counties voted Republican. This would seem to be a “more nearly correct” electoral result than what the winner takes all seems to have given. I haven’t looked at how that relates to Congressional districts so its not obvious how the overall result would have turned out.
clippermiami on December 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Yes, rather than sow up the wound and allowing it to heal, let’s just slow the bleeding.
joshleguern on December 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Er… because that is a horribly, horribly bad idea that also happens to be completely contrary to the principles on which our system was designed. Next question?
Shump on December 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM
That would be yoooooge in PA.
Obama won the popular vote by 4.5% but the Republicans won 13 of 18 House seats and I think Romney won the popular vote in each of those districts.
There would be massive conniption fits for the Democrats/MSM.
forest on December 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM
I’m not in favor of it nationally, but if states like California and New York want to award their EV’s to the popular vote winner, I fully support this idea.
The Count on December 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM
this would give the TEa party and other third party groups a lot mor eleverage to impact change. im for it. It would also rob the consultants of a problem. But let’s not do it in just dem leaning states lets do it in gop leaning states too so that the politicains can no longer avoid fly over country and just buy a couple ads. Also letys expnad the house double the members. so the people have more power.
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM
What on earth is the benefit of doing proportional electoral votes on a geographic, rather than a pure mathmatic basis. If you want proportional electoral votes, then award the percentage of the electoral vote based upon the state’s popular vote. If Obama wins 53% of the state’s popular vote then he gets 53% of the state’s electoral voters. That would create a truly national election. What you are suggesting is an election based in entirely in gerrymandering. How is that a good idea?
libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM
this would make voter fraud far less effective
commodore on December 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Good enough for Maine and Nebraska, good enough for other states.
theperfecteconomist on December 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Wake me up when the GOP starts embracing its roots of fiscal conservativism, federalism, non-intervention and individual liberty.
MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM
I am in favor of this in all states. Why should voters in smaller towns and rural areas be disenfranchised in the Presidential election because of one large metro area in a state? This sword cuts both ways and does not favor either Democrats or Republicans. One advantage for the people is that it ends the notion of “flyover” country.
crosspatch on December 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM
Even if we did this nationwide, it would still favor Republicans. Texas doesn’t have a whole lot of Democrat districts, certainly not as many as California or New York have Republican districts.
I just counted up by CPVI the votes that would go from being Republican in Red States to being Democratic votes in Red States, and compared it to the votes that would go from being Democratic in Blue States to Republican votes in Blue states.
Republicans would lose 31 of Romney’s votes.
Democrats would lose 114 of Obama’s votes.
vegconservative on December 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Definitely we need this. I’m sick and tired of the election coming down to 5 states(and sometimes not even that many). Let’s have California relevant for the GOP and Texas for the Dems. Make the candidates visit as many states as possible.
Doughboy on December 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Democrats invented Gerrymandering, but you hate it now. Sort of like your love of the filibuster during the Bush years, but now you need to change the rules. You guys even invented the pro-forma session during the Bush years only to watch Obama steamroll it.
I hope the next GOP president makes all of his SCOTUS appointments weekend “recess” appointments.
The Count on December 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM
Sounds like sour grapes from a losing party. Like the Democrats who wanted to abolish the Electoral College after Al Gore lost in 2000.
There were enough Republicans that stayed home in this election to win Pennsylvania and several other states. There were also an amazing number of voters in the Philly suburbs who voted for Obama AND for their GOP Representative.
The Pennsylvania GOP needs to spend more time figuring out how so many Republican House members got more votes than the Presidential candidate, and why so many Republicans stayed home.
rockmom on December 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM
More ways in which the GOP is officially trying to become the mini-Democrat party.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM
When you can’t convince voters with your message and your candidates, tinker with the mechanics. That will solve all your problems.
Mr. Arkadin on December 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM
I actually….agree with you. IIRC, the proposal for PA is proportional allocation up to number of Representatives + winner takes the last two. I think that’s a fine idea, not by congressional district.
JeffWeimer on December 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM
I like this idea. Now if we can just get the Senate back in the business of representing the states…
theblackcommenter on December 17, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Something for the national popular vote fans: if Sandy made landfall a week later the chaos would have easily depressed Obama’s popular vote margin by a couple of a million votes.
agmartin on December 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM
1. People are too stupid…wait, they are stupid with the current laws.
2. It’s unconstitutional.
3. The US is NOT a democracy, thank God. The founders knew human nature/mobs very well.
4. Democracies give you Morsi and Chavez, the cow in Argentina and etc.
5. Eat your heart out about all the above.
Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM
We’re getting killed on the mechanics as well, if you haven’t noticed. Democrats are kicking out our poll watchers and stuffing ballot boxes. They’re busing in people who can barely speak English. They’ve even moved up early voting to before even the first presidential debate.
We either need to play as ruthlessly as them, or we continue losing.
The Count on December 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Better plan: get more votes than the other guy in those states.
Ted Torgerson on December 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Because it would wind up just like the Illinois governor’s race in 2010. The Republican, Bill Brady, won every county in the state, except for Cook County, home of Chicago. Pat Quinn got so many people to turn out in that one city, that it overpowered the rest of the entire state and he won. The same thing would happen nationally. If the democrat gets enough people out in Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York, he/she pretty much sews up the election right then. The people in Wyoming/Idaho/Alaska/Rhode Island/Vermont etc….will have no say whatsoever.
topdawg on December 17, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Romney faught Obama with silky gloves.
Obama, the charlatanic thug faught with Chicago guns.
Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM
I’d gladly go along w/ such an amendment if you’d agree to a few more pro-democracy reforms like
- the People can propose amendments to the states
- the People can veto federal legislation and regulation
- the People can overturn court decisions
- the People can enforce laws the federal government chooses not to
etc.
edshepp on December 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Losing does not mean you are disfranchised. Conservative rural voters choose to live in areas that are more spread out, whose fault is that? Whatever reforms should occur each individual’s vote should count equally. Whether its a proportionally divided electoral college based upon the state’s popular vote percentages, whether its the current system or whether its a national popular vote. There is no reason that we should be voting based upon geographic population density. That’s nuts.
libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Come on. Romney came to the gunfight with a spork, not silk gloves.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM
There are several reasons. That’s why the founders put it in the constitution.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM
So, Republicans need to start stuffing ballot boxes, kicking out poll watchers, and bussing in non English speakers, in order to win elections? Well, O.K., if you say so.
Mr. Arkadin on December 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM
What is nuts would be to trust the corrupt machine that Mayor Daley built to deliver an honest election. That tradition has been carried on by the Democrats, and it would only take a few select high population counties to deliver the presidency to whomever they want.
sharrukin on December 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Now this is a really stupid idea.
huckleberryfriend on December 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM
And why should their voice matter more than the citizen of NYC or LA?
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM
Wouldn’t this hurt the GOP in Texas?
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Here’s my suggestion: instead of reading and posting inanities on a blog, why don’t you go read a book. The reasons haven’t changed in the last 2-250 years.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 4:14 PM
They were wrong then.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Yep. And, on net, it would be a complete wash politically. But, structurally and fundamentally, it would lead to more corruption and political warfare. Which is one of the reasons that it is a bad idea. (Completely aside from the reasons against pure popular vote elections.)
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM
I’m going to have to go with the founders being a lot smarter than you and every tin pot dictator on the structure of governance.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Good grief. You don’t really have to have a study group to find the answer to that one.
ddrintn on December 17, 2012 at 9:33 PM