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.
The GOP plot to push through legislation to change the way electoral votes are awarded is getting the attention of the mainstream press. Here is an article in the WAPO:
Even if you think the "winner take all" system could use some tweaking, there is a FAIR way to do it- divide EC delegates proportionate to the popular vote. For example, President Obama won Virginia in 2012, 51-49. You could pass reform that would allow Virginia to split its EC votes. Instead of winning all nine electorates, the tally would have been 5-4 for Obama. If that system were adopted in every state, that would be fair (I think).
But "fairness" is NOT what the GOP has in mind. They are targeting only swing states for "reform", specifically those which have been Red state govs, but have been voting Blue in presidential elections.
And the proposed GOP "reform" DOES NOT aim to allocate EC votes proportionally- its goal is to award ECs by congressional districts. Thus, a rural, under-populated distrct would have the same weight as a heavily populated urban one. In other words, the POPULAR VOTE would be rendered meaningless () Under this system, Romney would have won Virginia, 5 ECs to 4, despite having lost the popular vote. Had this system been in place in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Romney would have won the election, while losing the popular vote by 5 million!
This is not about election fairness. This is just another attempt by the anti-democratic GOP to solve their "demographic problem", not by appealing to more voters, but by nullifying their votes.
They must be STOPPED!
That's some of the American Exceptionalism crowd demonstrating just how exceptionally stupid some American politicos can be.
The arguement surrounding balancing power between high population areas and rural areas is not a new one. In fact it is as old as the American democracy. This was a debate that raged during the formation of the nation. It is why we have a House of Representatives based on state population and a Senate where each state has the same representation.
I'm in favor of a system that awards based on House and Senate seats like the alternate method listed in the article. Award one electoral vote based on how the voters in each house district choose, and then award the other two (senate seats) based on popular vote in the entire state.
Maybe the 4.84 MILLION California residents who voted for Romney would have their voices heard instead of being drowned out by LA, San Diego, and San Francisco. Maybe the rural citizens of states like Illinois, New York, and Florida could stop living under the thumb of the urban leaders who live hundreds of miles away. And liberal voters in the "solid" red states would now have a voice... decent-sized chunks of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee are blue when the maps are broken down into smaller voting blocks, but all those states went to Romney.
Most importantly, maybe then we would have reasonable inclusion of third-party choices in national politics instead of being forced to choose between the two corrupt major parties.
As for under- or over-representation of votes, this system would be identical to the current system. Wyoming would still get 1 electoral vote per 190,000 people, Vermont would still get 1 vote per 208,000 people (one red, one blue, both over-represented), and California would still get 1 vote per 700,000 people.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 01-28-2013 at 10:52 AM..
It is not shocking that the GOP would want a system that can more effectively usurp the popular vote.
They're ok with bringing yet even more rewards to parties that do the best job at manipulating state and local districts.
You really think Florida's legislature is an accurate representation of Florida? Let me guess, they do NOT want to split up the votes in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, etc.
Virginia's governor is now back tracking under the heat of the media scrutiny but six other GOP controlled states are moving head with their plans to gerrymander elections.
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.
) Under this system, Romney would have won Virginia, 5 ECs to 4, despite having lost the popular vote. Had this system been in place in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, Romney would have won the election, while losing the popular vote by 5 million!
