Now they oppose it as in 2012 Romney would have won.
Democrats have supported the idea that states should award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, even if that candidate didn’t win that particular state. They think such a policy would favor Democrats. Democrats are opposed to individual states awarding electoral votes by congressional district because they fear it would help the GOP, because the GOP would still get some electoral votes in blue states.
Democrats favor tinkering with the electoral vote if they think it will help Democrats, and oppose ideas which they think will help Republicans. They do not take any principled stand as such, regarding how to award electoral votes..
dumbest idea ever. This is exactly why they are the Stupid party because they are going to hand over permanent federal control to the Evil party as soon as the Evil party takes over at the state level. We in VIrginia have a similar problem to Texas, getting taken over by illegal Hispanics who do everything from construction of federal government or contractor facilities in Northern VA to drug running in the Shenandoah Valley. They have entire Spanish only neighborhoods in the DC suburbs and make up 1/3 or more of all vendors and shoppers at the flea markets. The Evil party will give them citizenship, then they will vote for the Evil party at the state level.
Would be a disaster. Would guarantee the death of Republicans since Dems know how to stuff ballot boxes and manipulate the numbers.
Would be better if they challenged the gerrymandering system.
The change to the EC you're talking about would fix a big part of the problem.
However, in District-based Electoral counting, the parasitic inner-city tribal masses can't outvote the Congressional Districts.
In nearly all larger states, the Democrat/Progressive/Socialist/Handout Party wins the urban vote, but loses to the Taxpayer-rich suburban and rural vote Districts.
I think the idea of Apportionment restores the Will of The People (ALL the people) and would go a long ways toward slowing the have-not's from raping the have's.
IF we had Voter ID, Apportioned Electoral Votes, and NO VOTING EXCEPT IN PERSON (except for Military voters who are deployed), then the Fraud would be more difficult, for sure.
My recommendation to the GOP
1) Fix vote fraud.
2) Run inspiring candidates that don’t put the electorate to sleep by the first commercial.
3) Run candidates who are conservative and are not afraid to espouse our values.
4) Stick to issues that are within the scope of the enumerated powers.
5) Stick any discussion of messing with our constitution and specifically the electoral college up your elitist kiester.
I got an idea...let Republicans nominate Republicans, instead of a bunch of Democrat-lites in Iowa and New Hampshire, with a heapin’ helpin’ bit of the MSM, nominate 3rd rate scrubs who trash Conservatives in the primaries, followed by fellating the Democrat nominee in the fall.
The cities are over-represented in the representative assembly that is the electoral college. The legislatures in the states have full power to change how they are chosen. Literally full power. The justice department and the voting rights act cannot trump the Constitution.
Well, well, well....
The Stoooopid GOPe waking up and actually doing something about voter fraud!
Now if they would push for closed primaries, we might have us an election next time.....
The pols focus on short-term advantage. But the consequences of this change could be extensive, and unintended:
1) Legislative districting/apportionment would become the real battleground for the Presidency, changing the timetable to ten-year cycles, and the focus to political insiders rather than the voters.
2) State politics would become extremely contentious, with even greater efforts to corrupt the re-apportionment process. This might, or might not, be a good thing, since apportionment now is rigged to create safe seats for incumbents, with slam-dunk majorities for one party or the other in each district. The change would encourage the minority party to risk making seats less safe in the hope of the national candidate pulling off a district upset.
3) Political parties would have increased say in Presidential elections.
4) Since apportionment would determine which party would win, the primaries would tend to decide the election. This could have the effect of reinvigorating the nominating conventions, if the states divide among various nominees, and further empower the national parties versus the individual campaigns.
5) National campaigns would then write off the states that used this system and whose results in the general election were thus already determined.
6) If all the states (VA, OH, FL) that formerly had a viable contest went to the district system, there would be no “battleground”, and thus little reason for a general election campaign. Presidential candidates need not run ads, explain their policies, have “debates”. Interest and turnout will plumet, effecting local and state elections.
Nebraska and Maine already apportion their EVs this way.