Not that they don't have it coming. It just tends to screw the Dems, as shown here:
Posted on 09/15/2011 7:15:39 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.
The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.
Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)
This could cost Obama dearly...
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
The Lefties seem to be genuinely afeared of this PA proposal.
I'm not so sure it's such a great idea myself, however. From a tactical point of view, while we may pick up EVs in states that we usually lose, like PA and IL, it seems that these would be balanced somewhat by losing EVs from Dem seats in states we *usually* win, like FL, NC, IN, etc.
Ultimately, however, I think this EV idea is dangerous specifically because it would almost eliminate the concept of divided government.
Think about it - whoever wins Congress would almost certainly also win the Presidency. While that may be good when we have a GOP President win and come in with a GOP Congress (well, unless they act like Bush II and Congress from 2000-2006....), what about if another Obama wins, and gets a Congress just like him?
What will cost 0bama is that he is an America hating communist.
It’s an excellent idea, and key to this is the fact that is the state GOP organizations and NOT the national GOP who are pushing it through. Pennsylvania is dominated by Philly and Pittsburgh, and assigning electoral votes to the Commonwealth’s individual congressional districts would break the cities’ stranglehold and finally give largely Conservative rural voters a say in the election.
Not if you factor the massive advantage incumbents have. There might be a new President, but the Congresscritter would remain.
Genius just isn’t the word. Stupid is. Rig the system and not too far in the future, it will come back tio bite them. This shows the corrupt side of politics - win by stealth and deception, not by winning the voters over by good policies.
Actually, it’s been the Democrats who have been pushing this idea for several years. It’s not a Republican idea at all. It’s been their way of getting around the Electoral College.
So I’m with you. I oppose the idea. It almost makes it like a parliamentary system, in which we vote in one government or another, liberal or conservative, and the president becomes nothing more than a prime minister.
Not that they don't have it coming. It just tends to screw the Dems, as shown here:
They are setting the stage for riots.
No, it was the 'rat party that opened this pandora electoral college box. Its just that the 'rats start this without any brain cell activity, in a knee-jerk kind of way... and now a few republicans have actually thought about it, and have found a legal constitutional way to proceed that accomplishes what the 'rats wanted to do, but now for republicans. 'Rats should never have pushed the notion of electoral college nullification, and neither should have pushed, way back when, the 17th amendment.
—Rig the system and not too far in the future...—
I would not apply the word “rig” to this. It actually makes it more fair. It is appalling that one guy can “slightly” win a ton of states and, therefore win all of their votes, while the other can win far more votes, but they are lumped in only a few states, so he ends up losing. I like representative government to be a little more “local” than that.
This idea has been analyzed several times since 2000 and in the long run comes out to favor the rats...bad idea.
The Constitution is very specific that it is up to each State to make rules to govern how their Electoral College electors are to be chosen. It wasn’t until 1836, I believe, that all States finally held elections to determine the electors. In 1832, South Carolina, for example, had their electors chosen by the State Legislature.
Maine and Nebraska already divide their electors this way, so there is certainly current precedent.
If you think you’ve seen Gerrymandering before, just wait until a plan like this is implemented.
The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution. If change is needed - change the Constitution all fair and square and above-board.
“But given the state of the economy and Obama’s low approval ratings, the election is likely to be close”
Close???? Where has this guy been for the past 3 years?
How about combining them? Candidate who won the most EVs would get all EVs from that state.
—The proposal is a method of nullifying the Constitution. If change is needed - change the Constitution all fair and square and above-board.—
I confess that I have not followed this issue all that closely. If your first sentence is true, then I agree with your second.
At least the GOP are targeting legal voters, you know...those here legally and breathing.
So who leaked the “the Plan” to Mother Jones?
We have a mole and the VRWC wants to see his head in a block of lucite on the security chief’s desk by Friday.
Don’t forget to set your decoder rings.
BTW: Wasn’t it originally Democrat controlled states that were pushing something like this?
Pennsylvania might switch to a Maine / Nebraska system, yes?
It makes sure that one area of the state doesn't consistently dominate every election, particularly when it is an area which is prone to fraud and fake votes as is the case in Pennsylvania.
It also equalizes votes so that every voter is picking three electors. Seven of Pennsylvania's congressional districts are highly competitive. Another five are somewhat competitive. Add the two at large votes and candidates will be able to compete for 9-14 electoral votes. They will just have to do it throughout the state rather than in the 1 or 2 largest media markets.
The RATs have been pushing their stupid National Popular Vote plan since the 2000 election. This is a logical counter.
Exactly.
The politicians:
cannot secure our borders.
cannot balance our budget.
cannot solve Medicaid/SS time bomb
But they can scheme and change the rules to get power for themselves?
I cautiously concur but only because the subject is PA. The idea seems not toxic only if it is the case in a few states. The government has moved far enough to democratic election structure and truly needs actually to reinstate some oligopolistic elements (Senators selected by legislatures again, for instance). PA’s proposal would increase the democracy in PA at the expense of mixed government, further destablizing the governance process.
I really don’t like it, overall.
This plan is a good one for us.
Pennsylvania is clearly a state where this system would benefit us.
New York, California, it would benefit us.
Texas, it would not benefit us.
I would like to see this system in California.
It is not nullifying the Constitution. Read about the history of how electors have been chosen since 1789 before you make statements like that.
Proportioning is nothing more than a softer version of the stupid National Popular Vote plan which would make states irrelevant. This would make state more relevant by making sure just one big urban area of the state didn't decide all elections.
Essentially, it does on the state level what the electoral college system does on the national level.
It is not a new idea. Two states are already doing it.
Before the election they held the opposite opinion; the dems were at first warning about messing with the Electoral College and implying that Bush might scheme to give more weight to the popular vote.
After the election, then the popular vote became the dem ideal.
This is reminiscent of the novel 1984 where a propagandist would change positions in the middle of a speech without even flinching
Well, no, the Constitution never specifies *how* states are to decide their electors. It may be a bad idea, but it's not unconstitutional.
The logic seems a bit circular to me. How exactly can it be determined how many electoral votes a candidate won unless they have all been allocated?
Something for everybody’s consideration:
In 2008, Obama beat McCain with 365 to 173 EV.
I every state in the union followed a CD proportion with state winner taking the remaining 2 EVs, the split would have been 301 for Obama and 237 for McCain.
I believe if you did that for all elections back to 1960 (maybe further), you would find that the idea doesn’t change a single election’s results.
Wouldn’t it be better simply to remove Philadelphia and Pittsburgh from the state?
Believe me, my in-laws would like to.
This is the kind of thing that could alter the democrat party. If we could split off electorals from NY and California too, then they would have to scale back their pro urban welfare state platform.
I hope PA goes ahead with this plan. My first reaction was to oppose it, but the beauty of this plan is it limits the vote fraud. The Rats can't get an entire states electoral votes with the fraudulent votes of the urban centers. It's better than going to the popular vote because vote fraud can then play a role again.
I hope the Pubs in PA have the same kind of courage that the Pubs in WI did.
California is trying to do this...which would in fact be a huge benefit to the GOP.
But I had some other thoughts about better electoral reform, aimed directly at democrat vote rigging:
1. Simultaneous precinct reporting—have a set time where all precincts report together after all the votes are counted—this would eliminate the practice of dem precincts monitoring returns and ‘finding’ enough votes to sway an election.
2. Blind precinct reporting—until the vote counting is complete and filed with the Secretary of State, precincts cannot identify themselves.
3. Precinct communication blackout—anywhere votes are counted, there should be a complete communication blackout—no cell phones, no texting, no e-mail, no external communications whatsoever, except directly with Secretary of State or registrar of voters as necessary to solve any issues or report count results. EVERY communication in and out of the precinct should be logged and recorded for audit purposes.
Had some other ideas, but too early in the morning to get them down in writing.
Thoughts?
THAT is a good point!
Probably true. I didn't go all the way back to 1960, but for 2000 and 2004, using some quickie back-of-the-envelope calculations we see:
2000 - Bush 302 vs. Gore 236, versus the 271-266 actual split
2004 - Bush 331 vs. Kerry 207, versus the 286-251 actual split.
Seems this plan might be a good way to break the lock that urban areas have on electing our President.
Well, now I have a pet project to do for the next few days. I’m pretty sure I can dig up election records for Congressional districts somewhere.
Just google “presidential election results congressional district XXXX” where XXXX is the year. SHould be able to pull something up from CQ, etc.
The only race in the modern era that would have changed had the Maine/Nebraska Formula been implemented nationwide was 1960. Nixon would have beaten Kennedy.
I live in the lib state of IL. Chicago dominates the state at all levels, but there are huge sections of the state that are not liberal. These areas of the State are meaningless in a presidential election. If this system existed here it would change that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.