Skip to comments.Changing the method of awarding electoral votes in swing states
Posted on 11/09/2012 7:17:46 AM PST by zaker99
Laura Olson reports on the happenings in Harrisburg, where Republicans now control all of the branches of government:
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.
In other reports, Pileggi sounds awfully sanguine about the effect this would have on PA as a swing state. Why even bring that up? Pennsylvania is typically a closely-divided state, and while it's gone Democratic in every election since 1992, it's been heavily campaigned-in every year.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Yes. Will the Republicans have enough sense to do this? No.
Don't be so sure.
This proposal was brought up after 2008 and the "compromise" was Voter ID.
Now, its time to push this one through and start assigning electors by congressional district.
Where is that US map of red vs blue counties?
The RATS would never win again if something like this was implemented.
This would have given the bulk of the elctoral college votes in Wisconsin to Romney, as Republicans hold most of the Congressional seats. Being a traditionalist, I never wanted to see the electoral college changed, but this is a good idea, IMHO. Worthy of consideration.
I’m of the opinion that a winner-take-all of ONE vote per county is the best approach.
But I also think congressional district electoral votes is a good idea as well. Maybe across the boared, one vote per district, then and addional vote per million residing in that district?
This makes great sense. Each state is apportioned one EV for each US Rep and one for each Senator. So, If you win the state overall, you get 2 (for the Senators) and one more for each House District you gain the majority of the vote in. This is a much fairer representation of the country. It really doesn’t penalize densely populated states since House Districts are apportioned by population. So, Los Angeles does have more Districts than eastern California, but there is no winner take all. It is hard to argue by anyone that it isn’t fair to do this. That way your district is fairly represented in the Electoral College. Now, how to make it actually happen?
It's not really a change to the electoral college. States are already free to decide how to determine how their electors vote.
Maine and Nebraska already choose their electors based on congressional district voting. Their other two electors are determined by the statewide vote totals.
What I like about this is it pretty much eliminates swing states, and instead creates swing districts.
Certain sections of California would be in play for Republicans, and certain sections of Texas would be in play for Democrats.
Instead of a billion dollars going into a few states, it would be spread out more.
I agree, I would also favor drawing Congressional districts along county lines. This would eliminate the practice of making district lines to favor the parties
Of course I would also favor a voting ban on anyone who receives any form of government money
At the presidential election level, voter fraud would be completely or almost completely useless, depending on the way the electoral votes are allocated. Dead voters will not have the same voice that they do now.
A good idea but I think we need to do it across the country as I advocated here:
There is no way to get states like CA, NY (where I live) to do this except through a constitutional amendment AND there is no way to get this done but through a constitutional convention (because Washington, D.c. will never go for it).
Now there are some arguments on my post that a con-con is not a good idea but I am thinking that if we have the majority; how can we lose? Why is it a bad idea? But, maybe I am wrong about this....
Would have changed the outcome in OHIO too.
Is that map from Tuesday’s Presidential election? If so, I am even more furious!
We don’t need a constitutional convention to achieve this. Each state has absolute power to allocate its electoral votes. We won’t get it done in every state. In fact, we don’t even need it in every state. There are some states that are already locks for republicans. We need to start fighting in the difficult states, and this is a legal way to achieve this.
“Of course I would also favor a voting ban on anyone who receives any form of government money”
Here’s a radical idea.
How about a ban on government handouts in the first place?
Everyone pays the same rate of taxes, nobody gets “special” favors, nobody can buy votes.
Also good for cutting down the effects of vote fraud. Let the Donks steal all they want in Philadelphia - won’t hit the rest of the state.
This is STUPID..
The entire purpose of the electoral college is to ensure large states do not overwhelm smaller states.. in the winner take all model, small states have overrepresentative power.. if you play this game, you basically are removing the states completely from the entire thing and just going with the popular vote which was not what the founders intended.
I live in PA, and I’m a Republican but I would not support such a short sighted crap action such as this.