Here in Michigan there is considerable support for doing away with our winner take all electoral allotment and going to a system where electoral votes would be awarded according to districts won.
Knowing you have studied the map and the red wave consuming the map I do pray that a modification proportionate to the heart and soul of America may one day be the heart and soul of the Electoral College for America is a Conservative nation and as is know by you, Creek. Liberals lie and only seek to maintain their own power through those lies. Logic and reason, as all know, is not a liberal’s strong suit therefore utilizing logic the massive red of the map tells each of us that Conservatism has taken America thereby creating our witnessing fear for all liberals. The liberals are sensing their plans could slip away from their grasp. May the liberals’ plan slip from their hands and return rightfully to those that are not children, as the liberals are children, and into the hands of the adults. When the plan slips from the liberals’ hands, I will declare a holiday, for me and mine, and dance in the street; for there will be no reason not to dance in joyous celebration.
If the MI legislature is really considering this, may I make the following suggestion:
Allocate one electoral vote (EV) for each congressional district (CD) won, and have the two remaining EVs allocated in the following way: (i) one for the candidate with the highest statewide vote percentage, and (ii) one for the candidate who carried the most CDs (and in case two or more candidates carry the same number of CDs, to the candidate with the highest statewide vote percentage among the candidates who tied in CDs carried).
This would be preferable to the allocation system used in NE and ME, where the candidate that wins statewide automatically gets the two extra EVs, so it would allow the Republican to win an extra EV is he or she carries more CDs than the Democrat. However, it still leaves one EV that would be allocated to the statewide winner, thus making it less likely that a creative judge could strike down such a system.
When PA considered adopting a similar allocation system in 2011 or so (albeit with the two extra EVs given to the statewide winner), I opposed such unilateral action, since I thought that the GOP nominee (who was unknown at that point) might need all of PA’s 20 EVs to get to 270. What I avidly favored was for several states with GOP legislatures and governors but that had voted for Obama in 2008 to switch, en bloc, to a CD allocation of EVs, since it would avoid the heartbreak of the Republican, say, carrying FL, OH and PA but failing to get to 270 because he didn’t make up the lost EVs from Democrat CDs in those three states by winning EVs in VA, MI and WI. Had each of FL, OH, PA, VA, MI and WI (all of which had GOP legislatures and governors in 2011 and 2012) adopted an EV-allocation system like the one I described above, Romney would have defeated Obama in the Electoral College by a 274-264 margin even though Obama carried all six of those states. Unfortunately, we can’t get all six of those states to amend their laws prior to 2016 because the Democrats captured the VA governorship and control the state senate through the Lt. Gov.’s vote, but that shouldn’t stop states that are unlikely to vote Republican in a presidential election in which their EVs could be decisive (MI and WI come to mind, and hopefully MN and IA also would be possibilities after this November’s elections) to approve such changes unilaterally.
So I would support MI (and WI) making such change in the allocation of EVs, and maybe OH and PA if they do so in tandem; we still would need to carry FL to win, but that would place us in much stronger shape than if we needed to carry FL *and* OH *and* PA.