Currently, only Nebraska and Maine use a district-based plan for allocating electoral votes. Both of these states are fairly inconsequential to Presidential elections due to their size and/or partisanship. However, as the GOP continues to flounder in Presidential elections a with the well-chronicled demographics painting an increasingly bleak picture for the future, several states which would not be inconsequential have been making noise about allocating their EC votes.
Unsurprisingly, the states doing this are mostly consequential battleground states that have been turning increasingly blue in recent elections. I mean, look at the roll call of states that have proposed or considered changes along those lines: Virginia. Pennsylvania. Michigan. Ohio. Wisconsin.
Everyone can see what those states have in common regarding their trending electorate. Even the RNC Chairman Reince Priebus feels that “it’s something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at.”
Two questions:
First of all, how likely are battleground states to actually go through with plans such as this, especially if 2016 results in yet another Democratic presidency?
Secondly, can anything be done to stop this obvious attempt to gerrymander the Electoral College at the, either at the federal level or at the individual states?
Suppose we did it by district nationwide – every Congressional district returns one elector; and every state’s two EVs for its senators go to whichever presidential candidate won either the majority of districts in that state or the popular-vote majority in that state.
You are dangerously close, sir, dangerously close! I say, to suggesting we permit the Federal government to trammel roughshod over State’s Rights!
Our Founders were well aware of the inherent danger of radical egalitarianism, of permitting too much power to pass from men of probity and property to those who possess neither!
Was it Anthony “Fat Tony” Scalia who said something to the effect that the purpose of the Constitution was to thwart progress, not to encourage it? (I’m told he might have been joking. Quite the card.)
Put baldly, its gonna be tough. It always was, when the popular will meets the resistance of money and power. Prising their aged and necrotic hands from the levers of power will not be quick or easy. But it can be done, and I think it will.
Its a bit like that feminist saying, that in order for a woman to succeed, she must do everything twice as good as a man. Luckily, that isn’t very difficult.
Well, no. A district that goes Democrat in its Congressional election can easily go Republican in the presidential election or vice-versa, there are a lot of factors in play. A House member can keep his seat term after term just because his constituents like him, not necessarily because they favor his party. There are even some voters who split their ticket on purpose, not wanting to vote either party too much power.
I don’t think it’s terribly likely that many states will take such a nakedly partisan step. What you really need to do is fix gerrymandering. It’s the only reason Boehner is Speaker and the only reason this idea makes sense for the Republicans. If the districts were drawn honestly, I wouldn’t mind it.
But that the Republicans currently control the state legislatures and the governorships. Nobody’s proposing to do this in California, New York, or Illinois, because the GOP isn’t strong enough at the state level.
You appear to be under the impression that there is a limit, a point at which they will say “No, no, we can’t do that, that would be wrong.”
There was a time when gerrymandering wasn’t that bad. It was never good, don’t get me wrong, but as a deal between the parties to protect the valuable incumbent, it was an example of non-partisan cooperation and corruption, a nod and a wink between colleagues. But that was then.
No but these measures are so nakedly partisan and retarded that they are easily being blocked in state legislatures and opposed even by some Republicans.
Legally, states can allocate electoral votes any way they wish. However, doing so in states where Democrats usually win just to steal a few extra electoral votes is obviously rigging the system, unless it’s evened out somehow by another red state doing it.
You lost me on that last turn. You give us a blue state doing it to steal a few electoral votes (bad), then posit another red state doing it to “even things out” (better)? Huh?
It’s information related to the OP. Is there some reason why it would be better not to be aware of things people on this MB posted on the exact same subject 6 months ago?
While I like the idea, the NPVC should not be implemented until ALL states agree to it or at least a decent balance between Red and Blue states considering that as it stands it will simply give victory to a Republican candidate should he win the popular vote but lose the EC.
The idea is to either support popular vote or electoral vote, rather than whichever is more likely to help your party.
My problem with the compact is that it doesn’t account for close national races. There isn’t going to be a national recount, so there needs to be a failsafe in case the popular vote winner is in question.
