Michigan Demonstrates Why Elections Matter

americanthinker.com ^ | 11/17/14 | Michael Sheppard

[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.

[TomasUSMC]

Congrats on your book.

But wasn’t the great compromise what gave birth to the present Senate. It gave greater power to the small states by giving them equal weight in the senate with the larger states...otoh the large states won out in the house, getting a representation according to their population?

You know I tried to see if a representative Senate would have stopped the South from stopping anti-slavery legislation but I never could get the best data on that...like the votes and such. Whats your opinion on that?

Thanks for the conversation ....I’ll send you my address for your book.

[cotton1706]

“But wasn’t the great compromise what gave birth to the present Senate. It gave greater power to the small states by giving them equal weight in the senate with the larger states...otoh the large states won out in the house, getting a representation according to their population?”

Yes, on this you are correct, but there were always going to be two legislative bodies and one body was always going to be a much smaller than the other. The founders were used to this. Every colony had a more numerous lower house or Assembly, and a small upper house or Council (this body usually counseled the governor). And frequently the lower house elected the upper house, with the approval of the governor (usually a royal governor appointed by the king).

“You know I tried to see if a representative Senate would have stopped the South from stopping anti-slavery legislation but I never could get the best data on that...like the votes and such. Whats your opinion on that?”

Frankly I don’t think it would have, because power at the time was weighed exactly the opposite. The House, the representative body, was more populated with pro-slavery forces. They had the Gag Rule for a while and John Quincy Adams was only able to get rid of that by being determined and vigilant and striking when nobody was paying attention.

Great! I think you’ll enjoy the book. It’s a very quick read, but very informative.