Posted on 11/17/2014 6:46:56 AM PST by cotton1706
According to the Lansing State Journal, a GOP legislator, State Rep. Pete Lund, is introducing a bill to move Michigan's 16 Electoral College votes to a proportional basis instead of the current winner take all.
This has, rightly from their point of view, set off alarm bells at the likes of "progressive" site Daily Kos which sees the possibility of a Democratic 2016 presidential victory slipping away -- although "rigged" is how they describe it. On the other hand, it was that site which advised that the Black Democratic crossover vote in Mississippi's GOP runoff to defeat the conservative Republican Chris McDaniel (who came first in the primary) was "democracy." They now selectively rail re the Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 Michigan move to proportional EC vote as "undemocratic". The United States Constitution allows each state to determine how electoral votes are proportioned -- Maine and Nebraska do it by congressional district won, for example.
The Democratic Party has won Michigan by an average of 53% over the last five elections. Under the proposed change, instead of giving the Dems all 16 Electoral College votes, the split would be 11 to the Democrats and 5 to the Republicans under the new law.
If the law passes, and Michigan's vote in 2016 remains within historic bounds, it will give the GOP the equivalent of another Nebraska which has 5 EC votes which could be vital in a close race. As set out in an Electoral College analysis based on the GOP's midterm's Senate victories, the Republicans are very much in the hunt for 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The fact that they appointed Romney’s niece when Land stepped down from the RNC says plenty.
I wonder how much of this comes from people upset from when they took a vote from Santorum and gave it to Romney so he would get the nomination.
Yeah that irritated the hell out of me.
We didn’t expect a tie so we’re changing the rules and giving it to Romney.
These are the same idiots who approached Scott Romney to run for the senate seat.
Personally, I favor the electoral votes going to the candidate who carries the majority of the counties in a state. Something needs to be done to stop the large cities in a state from always carrying the electoral votes.
Democrats were demanding proportional electoral college voting back when it looked like it might help them.
While they are at it they can go to DC and get rid of the Senate and get rid of it totally.
I wish we elected senators the same way.
///////////////
agreed
“While they are at it they can go to DC and get rid of the Senate and get rid of it totally.”
Absolutely not! There should always be at least two houses of a legislature, to check eac hother. And they should be composed of different numbers, elected by different constituencies.
Yes it migrated me as well. This changing of the rules after the vote just showed that peoples vote does not matter. It is why I became a precint delegate.
I am sure that is why a lot of people became delegates. So many that one of the local GOPe delegate was not even elected at the last election and had to be elevated to become a delegate.
When we elected state delegates real conservative took 18 of the 24 delegate slots. We could have taken them all if we had know that another group was working seperate from us. We voted for them but they did not for us. Won’t happen next election.
Now this leadership vote tonight was moved to allow the GOPe people to get organized better. They also changed the rules so that you had to pay dues for several years to be elected. Once again they have show that it is power they want and could care less about the people who vote for the party. This can only go so far before changing the rules will no longer be a option.
They will lose as more people see things like the rule change for Romney for what it is. A ploy of I am in power and I get what I want even if I have to change the rules on you.
Migrated is irritated.
I would agree; the electoral college should not be abolished. However, the Constitution does not say anything at all about the method for choosing electors for the EC. The winner-take-all method used by most states right now is simply the decision of the states that use it (all except Maine and Nebraska). The Constitution gives the states the complete and total freedom to determine how they will choose electors. There is not even a guaranteed right for the general public to vote on electors. The state legislatures could choose to select the electors via a vote of the legislature, by having the governor choose electors, or just drawing names out of a hat.
The purpose of the EC is to give the states the ultimate power in deciding the Presidential election. Changing the method of choosing electors if the states are not satisfied with the current one is the sole prerogative of the state. That was the original intent of the Founders.
I think its a bad idea to break up state electorates, particularly for small states. It just pushes them further towards presidential irrelevancy.
Large States I can see it happening only from the perspective of breaking up the State into Regional units of which the Congressional district is as small a I would go.
“I think that all Democrat majority states should apportion their electoral votes.
I also hope that no Republican majority states are stupid enough to do this.
Michigan, California and New York should all be apportioned. Texas should not.”
I think if California and New York Apportion by Congressional district as Maine and Nebraska do then Texas and Florida should do it.
I do not however no state smaller than 5 electors would be advice to go that route, less they lose representation instead of gain it.
I would prefer something more along the lines of popular vote...whomever gets the most votes wins....which of course will never fly. I guess I’m fed up w/ my vote not counting at all...ever...here in WA state.
Just seems so odd or unfair that this state votes one way ( all mail voting, no id required) and other states vote an entirely different way. Now states are talking about assigning electors by congressional districts. :::sigh::: I guess I’m fixated on process because it’s always bothered me how we elect our presidents.
At this point...since I’m in the minority...could we at least not have Christie or Bush as the R candidate? Please.
Although Maine hasn’t split its votes since they started the method in 1972, and Nebraska has done so only once since 1992 (2008, 4-1 McCain, Omaha going to B Hussein).
Why check each other? Maybe two Presidents too, so they can also check each other.
No the Senate is not representative of the people. We have one million in one state with the same representation as 40 million in another. Nebraska is unicameral and they are doing fine and cheaper.
The Check and Balances is between the Judiciary the Executive and the Legislative....a unicameral system, such as Nebraska has, preserves that.
“No the Senate is not representative of the people.”
Not was it ever intended to be, the 17th Amendment notwithstanding.
“Why check each other? Maybe two Presidents too, so they can also check each other.”
Because it’s very dangerous to have all the legislative power vested in a single body, especially at such a high and far away level as the Federal Government. Legislative power in a single assembly can work well at a very local level, such as a town council, etc. Nebraska has made it work somehow but that is rare.
Historically, the safest method of make law is to divide the legislature into three parts, the one, the few and the many. This has been done through the ages. The government of England had King, Lords and Commons, we did it through a president, a senate and a house of representatives, the one, the few, and the many. Any one of these three can check either or both of the other two.
Then there is an additional check by separating the Executive from the Legislative and the Judicial from both.
“No the Senate is not representative of the people. We have one million in one state with the same representation as 40 million in another.”
The senate was never intended to represent the people. It was intended to represent the states, that is why each state is equally represented. The idea was that ALL legislation, all laws would have be approved by both the people and the states, and then also approved by an individual selected by both (the people through the states- the Electoral College).
John Adams wrote extensively about this. If you message me your address, I can send you a copy of my book, which boils these ideas down. Or you can read Adams’ “Thoughts on Government” which is also included in my book.
SO the Senate doesn’t represent the people? Who then does it represent? The States? And the States are made up of what thing that needs representation? Trees, rivers, roads or the PEOPLE that reside in that State.
Thus the people are what is supposed to be represented by the Senate. But not in a haphazard way. Not....one Senator for every 200,000 and another for 20,000,000.
If we want to keep the Senate as some “higher” house made up of a more experienced older conservative house to balance the more reactive liberal house...the citizens of this Country should still have a just balanced representation in it.
That was exactly the intention of the Founders, as I'm sure you well know. Quid pro quo for the smaller colonies joining the US.
Surely you're not suggesting that Senators ought to be allocated to the States based on population? That would be far more radical than any current attempt to do away with / weaken the electoral system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.