Moderator or not, you will pay for this.
This forum requires that you wait 60 seconds between posts. Please try again in 7 seconds.
Like certain yahoo states that are still fighting the Civil War.
The current system was just fine when it suited their needs. Now that they can’t bring a decent message to the election, instead of changing the message, they want to change the rules. What babies.
If the President is indeed elected by the states, I’d think that changing the way their votes are selected may be in their best interest.
Campaign spending will have to be shown in scientific notation.
Its “winner of the majority of Congressional districts take all”, not “winner of the total popular vote in VA take all”. The reason for doing it that way is because the GOP will almost certainly win the former but may not win the latter in 2016.
Just off the top of my head, this would give the Republicans several extra electoral votes from California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and probably Pennsylvania. The Democrats would pick up avote here & there, but the net effect would almost certainly be a big boost for Republicans.
The republicans are pushing hard for this in states that go blue in presidential elections. They are just fine with winner-take-all in states that are reliably red.
If it were done everywhere at once it wouldn’t be so unfair. Obama won 13 districts in TX, while Romney won 15 in CA, which given TX has fewer districts total, could probably be considered a net gain for Obama. It would still be a bad idea, but not necessarily unfair.
Obviously if you only do it in States like Penn or MI that usually go blue, or purple states like VA where the GOP has gerrymandered a strong advantage, then its a pretty blatant attempt to rig the rules in the GOP’s favour.
So far this effort has been focused on swing states, and that does make the motivation very obvious. It’s starting to look like it will die on the vine in Virginia, though.
However, in Virginia, Republicans took advantage of the fact that a Democrat State Senator (the state senate is tied in party affiliation 20-20) was at the inauguration to ram through a senate redistricting bill 20-19.
Although nakedly partisan, if they succeed, then when they get their gerrymandered state senate majority they could make the state electors proportional to the total vote or something, thus giving the Republican (probably) 6 or 7 of the electors in 2016.
And you think campaigning goes on too long now? Forget the White House, the next president will be on a road trip for the length of the term just to give a stump speech in all the congressional districts.
I’m so angry after reading that link. This is reason #2153 why the Federal Government should STOP collecting demographic data as it serves little purpose other than disfranchisement of minorities. For these assholes to use this data to partition blacks and whites into neat districts while the other Senator was at the inauguration is just beyond the fucking pale.
As for the OP, I think if all of the States adopted the Maine-Nebraska model, there’d be no point to the Electoral College. What’s next? Will New York offer its EC votes not based on district but by population density? You’d might as well abolish it and put it to a popular vote or leave the existing (although imperfect) system in place.
Now, I don’t mind States adopting changes to how they award their votes but for several blue States to change them en masse is too much of a coincidence. Unless Republicans are the Borg, who’s pulling the strings? My other worry is that it appears that Republicans are trying to change the rules rather than change their tone and message. The latter suggest - at least to me - that tacking toward the center has not even crossed their minds or has been calculated to be political suicide.
- Honesty
Why stop at splitting the votes along district lines? Is there anything to prevent a state legislature from simply passing a law that says their state’s electoral votes will always go to the republican candidate?
The Republican and Democratic Parties don’t have any God-given right to the Oval Office so the question of fairness ought to include something more than whether or not an electoral change favors one party over the other. Districting the presidential election is necessarily unfair in that people within a state will no longer have an equal vote. It’s doubling down on inequity. Bad enough all Americans don’t get an equal vote. No need to include more bias.
Not so because then opponents would harp on the fact that s/he wasn’t doing her job. It’s them that will constantly travel around campaigning. You know, just like they do now. Candidates basically campaign as much as they can now. Increasing campaigning just isn’t realistic outside of technological advances.
Yes. The Constitution doesn’t allow states to assign electoral votes. They can only pick Electors. OTOH a state could allow the state’s top Republican to name the Electors every four years. (Though activist judges might step in to prevent such a move.)
That’s true.
But you can look at which districts were won by Obama and Romney in 2012 and count them up and see what would have happened. If all 50 states had allocated EC votes that way, Romney would have won.
Ah, but the Voting Rights Act REQUIRES most states to use that same data to make sure minotiries are enfranchised in the first place - and furthermore, to do essentially what the Virginia Senate did, by creating a new black-majority district.
This is the ironic side effect of that requirement of the Voting Rights Act. By assuming that blacks can only be represented by other blacks, it puts concentrates them in a few districts (“packing” them) which dilutes surrounding districts and makes them more white and Republican. So you end up with a few more blacks, but also an even greater number of Republicans to overwhelm them.
I believe this was a significant factor in the Republicans breaking up the 40-year Democratic domination of the House starting in 1994.
The 538 blog has a piece about this today. Their opinion is that Romney would have won but as far as I can see, they ignore how the campaign might have been run differently.
A recent Slate article on the same subject pointed out that a change like this would have dramatic effects on campaigning, with money pouring into battleground districts instead of states. It points out that conservative Republicans might not appreciate metric tons of DNC dollars flowing into their districts to scrounge every last Democratic vote.
It’s probably outlawed by the various state constitutions, but nothing in the federal constitution prohibits it.
The long and the short is the state legislatures have broad latitude regarding how they choose presidential electors.