Maybe you ought to look at the Congressional Districts in Maine and Nebraska where the system is actually used before making such a statement. Then compare that to a couple of states where the system is not used.
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 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?
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.