U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2014, 01:33 PM
 
9,384 posts, read 9,546,239 times
Reputation: 5786

Advertisements

Electoral college shake-up bill gets hearing today
A Michigan legislator is proposing changing the electoral allocations from winner-takes all to proportional.
The winner will automatically get 9/16 of the electoral votes, and then an additional one for every 1.5% above 50%, so in 2012 Mitt Romney would have gotten 5 rather than 0 Electoral votes from Michigan.
Obviously Michigan can not give over 19 electoral votes so once a Candidate hits 59.5% they get all of the votes.
With Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa being light blue states controlled by Republicans if this passes it could have wide repercussions over states with 43 electoral votes.
Obviously Republicans would have to win Florida and Ohio/Virginia, but it makes a few more states like New Hampshire and Colorado losable and changes the map.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2014, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,479 posts, read 6,349,075 times
Reputation: 1197
Why make it so complicated?

1 Electoral vote per congressional district.
2 Electoral votes for the statewide winner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2014, 02:38 PM
 
9,384 posts, read 9,546,239 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
Why make it so complicated?

1 Electoral vote per congressional district.
2 Electoral votes for the statewide winner.
I think because Republicans would get 9 out of 16 votes or "win" Michigan even when they lose the popular vote by 10%, which seems sort of outrageous if the loser gets more electoral votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 04:35 AM
 
9,384 posts, read 9,546,239 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
Why make it so complicated?

1 Electoral vote per congressional district.
2 Electoral votes for the statewide winner.
In fact if Republicans wanted to the can make it so whoever wins the most congressional districts wins the state, this would mean wins in Ohio, Nevada. Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, and Virginia would be almost certain. So it would make it pretty hard for Democrats to win the presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2014, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,479 posts, read 6,349,075 times
Reputation: 1197
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I think because Republicans would get 9 out of 16 votes or "win" Michigan even when they lose the popular vote by 10%, which seems sort of outrageous if the loser gets more electoral votes.
Much less outrageous than whole states giving all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 07:45 AM
 
8,087 posts, read 4,422,299 times
Reputation: 3074
Interesting proposal. Certainly adds balance to the majority takes all. I'll have to think about it, but it might actually edge Michigan back toward the Federalist ideal of a Constitutional Republic.

As for Ohio, if John Kasich wound up the ticket, that could reshape not only Ohio electoral college, but affect other Midwestern states as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
Electoral college shake-up bill gets hearing today
A Michigan legislator is proposing changing the electoral allocations from winner-takes all to proportional.
The winner will automatically get 9/16 of the electoral votes, and then an additional one for every 1.5% above 50%, so in 2012 Mitt Romney would have gotten 5 rather than 0 Electoral votes from Michigan.
Obviously Michigan can not give over 19 electoral votes so once a Candidate hits 59.5% they get all of the votes.
With Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa being light blue states controlled by Republicans if this passes it could have wide repercussions over states with 43 electoral votes.
Obviously Republicans would have to win Florida and Ohio/Virginia, but it makes a few more states like New Hampshire and Colorado losable and changes the map.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 09:18 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,291,148 times
Reputation: 4025
Basically this is just another way for Republicans to rig the game to stay in power.

Republicans control most of the districts through gerrymandering. This is posturing to translate that into electoral college gains through isolating Democratic voting blocks.

Republicans know they can't win the electoral college outright, so they are attempting to pack their voters. Just more erosion of our democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 09:32 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,291,148 times
Reputation: 4025
But, you won't see a bill like this brought on the floor in a Republican State!!!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,304 posts, read 11,544,319 times
Reputation: 4316
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
Interesting proposal. Certainly adds balance to the majority takes all. I'll have to think about it, but it might actually edge Michigan back toward the Federalist ideal of a Constitutional Republic.

As for Ohio, if John Kasich wound up the ticket, that could reshape not only Ohio electoral college, but affect other Midwestern states as well.
As it was already stating, you are basically saying you are ok with someone losing the election in that state by 5 to 12%, but winning the majority of gerrymandered congressional districts and there for getting the majority of the State electoral college.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,533,646 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Basically this is just another way for Republicans to rig the game to stay in power.

Republicans control most of the districts through gerrymandering. This is posturing to translate that into electoral college gains through isolating Democratic voting blocks.

Republicans know they can't win the electoral college outright, so they are attempting to pack their voters. Just more erosion of our democracy.
Pretty much, the only people who would be against the majority votes taking a state would be Republicans in states they can't get a majority vote in, but can win more districts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top