Skip to comments.Presidential electoral vote changes supported by delegates at Michigan Republican Party convention
Posted on 02/25/2013 6:24:38 PM PST by cripplecreek
LANSING, MI - Delegates at the recent Michigan Republican Party state convention overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution in support of a plan that would change how the state awards electoral votes in presidential elections.
The convention support could provide momentum for some Republicans in the state Legislature who want to divide electoral votes primarily based on winners in individual congressional districts a dramatic change from Michigans current winner-take-all format.
Michigan currently awards all of its 16 electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Last year, that was President Barack Obama, who defeated Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Michigan by more than 9 percentage points.
Republican Rep. Pete Lund's pending proposal would award one vote to the winner of each of the state's 14 congressional districts and two votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. If that system had been in place last year, it appears Romney could have won 9 electoral votes to Obama's 7.
Lund, from Shelby Township, says the plan isnt designed to help one political party over the other. He says its a move designed to be more representative of the people and actual vote totals.
A similar proposal from Lund did not advance in the Legislature last year, but he plans to try again in 2013.
Democrats and liberal groups are blasting the proposal. Progress Michigan says on its webpage the plan is a Republican attempt to steal elections.
Democrats say Republicans want to change election rules because they dont like the outcome of recent presidential elections in Michigan. A Republican hasnt won a presidential election in Michigan since 1988.
There are key Michigan Republicans including Gov. Rick Snyder with concerns about the timing of the proposal to change how electoral votes are distributed.
Basically my view is this wouldnt be the appropriate time, really, to look at something like that, Snyder told reporters after he appeared at the state convention on Saturday. But the right way to do it is to try to do it in a bipartisan way, probably prior to a census so you avoid all the other issues and you can set a level playing field. If people are going to change it, thats when it would be appropriate.
Delegates at the Republican state convention, however, approved the resolution supporting the change by a 1,370 to 132 vote.
Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district. Some other states with Republican-controlled legislatures are considering similar changes, according to The Associated Press.
I agree. it would also do away with the welfare mama’s in the big cities basically taking the whole state.
as in michigan , in which the tiny little land mass that is detroit decided who won our states vote. the rest of the hundreds of miles of land and people voted for romney and it didn’t count. I know the cities are filled with alot of people but their needs are different than those of the land owning, freedom loving, self reliant people who live in the other nine tenths of the state.
What would you wait for? Some time where you were not within 4 years of a presidential election?
I’ve already written to Richardville and Shirkey about supporting this and I’m going to continue to do so.
It basically makes vote fraud in Detroit kind of pointless because they’ll only get the allotted number of electoral votes. If they want to commit fraud, they’ll have to leave their comfort zone and risk getting caught in places that aren’t friendly to them.
I’m for it as well, because of the limitation on fraud, as well as it being generally more representative of the voting patterns of the state. One consequence that may not have been considered, is that going this route will enable third party candidates to possibly siphon off delegates, by winning a district here and there. Personally I’m all for having more choices.
Close the dang primary, too, while you’re at it.
NY would even become a red state. The liberals would never go for it.
Mob rule (welfare mobs) is the only way they can win in most states.
If districts got their own say, the democrats would never win another election. There isn't enough blue areas to sustain them. A district map of the U.S. shows the country is basically all red.
The people have it within their power to rebalance their own government.
There are 24 states with the GOP holding all 3 branches of government. Democrats have 13 states with 3 branch majorities.
Every Red/Purple state should condider doing this ASAP. The entire presidential election was probably decided by less that 20 congressional districts...
I read that earlier on mlive, the comments were obviously mostly retards going to U-M.
These same RETARDS all want a national election based on the popular vote - and went on to claim that it is republicans that want to steal elections.
Only one thing to say on saving America:
REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!
There would be no Fat Stabacow or Karl Marxist Lenin as our senators, other states too.
Unlike the Founder Founders who had designed a republic, libtards always prefer mob rule majorities as they have no understanding of a representative republic.
It would turn Florida red too along with a bunch of other states.
I’m pretty worried about this - it’s playing with fire. People will see this as a blatant electoral vote grab. It might lead to greater popular support for a National Popular Vote.
“There are 24 states with the GOP holding all 3 branches of government. Democrats have 13 states with 3 branch majorities.”
That leaves 20 states with split governments! ;-)
I wonce read that 83% of the counties in the US are Republican.
Elections should not be won by voter fraud in 8-10 counties.