The Dems want to do away with the electoral college. Every time the side who loses wants to change the election. Keep it the way it is. We have won many times. We have lost a few. We do not need to change the way the election is done.
And another opinion....
I just posted similar thoughts on another topic.
I once gave states allocating proportional electoral votes by congressional district short shrift. Now I think it is the only way to fight big city corruption and 120% voting tallies.
If you look at the red blue map of this country, red lands far exceed the blue coastal areas and major cities. We can never win all of Californias electoral votes, but we can take a chunk under a proportional system.
We have 30 GOP governors. They should be looking at an electoral college proportional voting system to fight against demorat vote stealing.
With a proportional system Philadelphia can vote 200% of their registered voters; they will only win Philadelphia.
I would like Barone to do a study. Im sure we can take more electoral votes from them in such a system than they can take from us.
Only if we do away with gerrymandering, which is never going to happen. Gerrymandered districts are one reason that Congressional incumbents are re-elected at such a high rate (and, therefore, that once a party takes control of the House, that party tends to stay in control for at least a few cycles). Likewise, awarding electoral votes by CD may make it more difficult to vote out an incumbent President.
Also, especially given the gerrymandered districts that exist, this method would make it extremely likely that the party in the White House would nearly always also control the House.
Even though this approach would likely benefit the GOP in the short term, in the long term, I think it would be bad for the country.
This is well within the power of any state to enact. Two already do so. It may be the only way to save the Republic.
Then the Dims would move most of the districts into the cities, in the interest of fairness, and lock things up even tighter.
This doesn't need to (and constitutionally possibly can't) be done at the federal level.
Why not a President picked by the House? From among Senators and Governors?
First, there needs to be an investigation of the zero-vote districts in the inner cities of the country. If a few people can be identified, even secretly, in these districts as voting for Romney, it’s Katy bar the door.
Second, nationwide implementation of the Maine-Nebraska method is relatively easy.
A. Republican controlled state governments in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin convert to the Maine-Nebraska method. They can do this on their own. These states lean Democratic. We might win them in an election we’d win anyway. But, we lose them in the close elections.
We could do this in Florida, Ohio and Virginia also, even though we would win these states in an even-up election.
With a share of the EVs from these states plus the Romney states, we’d win even if we’re down 2 or 3 points in the popular vote. Maybe even 4 or 5 points down.
The Democrats might scream bloody murder, but there’s nothing they could do about it. They don’t control any Red state where they could do to us what we could do to them. (They do control West Virginia, but we win statewide and all the EVs in any close election.)
To negate the advantage of the Republicans, the Congress could refer a Constitutional Amendment to the states to shift all the states to the Maine-Nebraska method. I actually think that would be fair. Our people could support the Amendment in return for something like repeal of their support of our version of the budget deal (which uses tax reform instead of tax increases to raise revenue).
How about we set up an electoral college in each state with one vote per county. This college would elect federal senators from the state. This can be done by the states and would level the playing field between rural areas and urban centers. In essence this method will prevent urban centers from enslaving other people in the state. And provide all people in the state representation. Not just the takers.
I live in MD [forgive me]. After my state passed the law to join the National Popular Vote [NPV] Compact, I researched the electoral process extensively.
Don’t worry, the NPV Compact does not become effective unless enough states with 270 electoral votes also join. Additionally, the NPV could be constitutionally defective - but cannot be tested in court unless it is applied.
Anyway, the better solutions to the current winner-take-all approach that is in effect in 48 states are:
Proportional Allocation [PA, which is only marginally better]and Congressional District Apportionment [CDA, which is the best method].
CDA follows the method by which we elect our national government. Local voters from individual districts select their Representatives, while the voters of the State [as a whole] elect the Senators. CDA grants one electoral vote to the winner of each individual district and puts each local electoral vote on an equal footing since it allows the voters within a given district to decide who gets their electoral vote. It also acknowledges the overall will of the state by granting a two electoral “bonus” to the winner of the popular vote of the state.
CDA also lessens the effect of election fraud since the electoral votes are not awarded as a lump sum. Fraud [that would tip a majority of votes of a district] would have to be committed in each district in order to gain the electoral votes of all the districts. Of course, any fraud could tip the balance of the state-wide total, BUT it could ONLY affect the award of two electoral votes. That cannot be helped ...
Additionally, recounts would only be necessary in districts that were very close, and on a state-wide level only if the popular vote were very close.