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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
