Republicans Trying To Game Electoral College

[1Perry]

. Perhaps he was reserving the right to comment on whether your second example would be any more relevant than your first.

Then say so. Not that you'll just read it.

The reason Lani Guinier was opposed was because she was a strong proponent of proportional representation.

 

[Deuce]

How do you see it doing that?

10 years from now when the Democrats do it to them.

I think what should happen is that districts should be drawn by a computer. The computer goes purely off population, doing its best to come up with districts that are as equal and coherent as possible in both population and geography. Gerrymandering is the lowest of the low in terms of political tactics. It is literally trying to stack the deck, it is anti-democracy. Trying to expand gerrymandering to the freaking white house is equally abhorrent.

 

[the makeout hobo]

10 years from now when the Democrats do it to them.

I think what should happen is that districts should be drawn by a computer. The computer goes purely off population, doing its best to come up with districts that are as equal and coherent as possible in both population and geography. Gerrymandering is the lowest of the low in terms of political tactics. It is literally trying to stack the deck, it is anti-democracy. Trying to expand gerrymandering to the freaking white house is equally abhorrent.

The problem with that is that the computer has no regards for things like population centers, and you could have lines randomly cutting a city in pieces, which as far as I know, no one thinks is a good idea. A nonpartisan counsel is the best way to go, IMHO.

 

[the makeout hobo]

the Maine/Nebraska system isn't bad... and lots of folks, not just Republicans, think it's a lot more fair than a winner-take-all system.

i'm not sure why this is being portrayed as "gaming the system" though... it's really not.... but I understand why it's being sold that way, but partisanship should not be an alternative to thinking.


the winner take all system nullifies the votes of the minorities... if 51% vote one way, the other 49% are simply SOL.
this Maine /Nebraska system simply allows for the minority to have a portion of the voice in federal elections.



Republicans in blue states really like the idea... and Democrats in red states do too.
anywhere that you find an minority, they will like the idea of getting a say in matters...

To clarify, I have no issue with the Maine/ Nebraska system (even if its not my first choice), its the fact that while they're trying to institute it in one state to help them, they're trying to do away with the Maine/Nebraska system in Nebraska, where it helped Obama. Either be for it, or against it.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

appealing to self sufficiency, less federal government and less dependency is a white value?

appealing to..insert whatever i want here to completely skew an argument in a shoddy debate tactic.. is exactly what white people want.

 

[samsmart]

Really, I try to give Republicans some benefit of the doubt and treat them in good faith, but it is hard sometimes. In Pennsylvania, a blue state with large red enclaves, Republicans are trying to give electoral votes by district. In Nebraska, where this is in effect that Obama won one district last election, the Republicans are trying to turn the state to a winner take all system. It seems clear to me that the Republicans, in both states, are just trying to change the rules to help themselves win, and I see this as a fundamentally unfair and malicious thing to do. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the perspective of anyone who thinks this is totally legitimate and ok.

| Missouri News Horizon

Pennsylvania ponders Electoral College revamp - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Actually, you have it backwards.

Currently, most states allocate their electoral votes based on a winner-take-all system. What that means is that whoever gets 50%+1 of the popular votes get 100% of the electoral votes.

What the Congressional District Method does is break up those electoral votes based on districts. Whichever candidate gets 50%+1 of the popular vote within a district gets that district's electoral vote and whichever candidate gets the plurality of the popular votes statewide gets the 2 electoral votes for their Senators.

And I must say I actually support the Congressional District Method. I think it allows more direct democracy in the election of President. I also think it is a better method of federalism.

Of course, this could be abused via gerrymandering of districts. But if that will push our government system to getting rid of Single-Member Districts and instead have Representatives chosen via a method for state-wide proportional representation then all the better.

 

[jackalope]

I live in Maine (a state that is not WTA), so I can understand PA wanting to do this.

The naked political impetus for it, however, might increase other states' willingness to consider the National Public Vote initiative. Only 9 states, plus DC, have so far signed on, but cherry-picking vote splitting states by one political party might make other states look at it again.


National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

[jackalope]

To clarify, I have no issue with the Maine/ Nebraska system (even if its not my first choice), its the fact that while they're trying to institute it in one state to help them, they're trying to do away with the Maine/Nebraska system in Nebraska, where it helped Obama. Either be for it, or against it.

Yes. Exactly.

 

[samsmart]

To clarify, I have no issue with the Maine/ Nebraska system (even if its not my first choice), its the fact that while they're trying to institute it in one state to help them, they're trying to do away with the Maine/Nebraska system in Nebraska, where it helped Obama. Either be for it, or against it.

Yeah, but it could also go against the GOP in later elections.

Not only that, but Pennsylvania is expected to be a swing state for the '12 election. So if during the '12 election if the state-wide popular vote swings for Republicans it could seriously hurt the GOP candidate.

In fact, there are many GOP national politicians who are against this.

 

[lpast]

Actually, you have it backwards.

Currently, most states allocate their electoral votes based on a winner-take-all system. What that means is that whoever gets 50%+1 of the popular votes get 100% of the electoral votes.

What the Congressional District Method does is break up those electoral votes based on districts. Whichever candidate gets 50%+1 of the popular vote within a district gets that district's electoral vote and whichever candidate gets the plurality of the popular votes statewide gets the 2 electoral votes for their Senators.

And I must say I actually support the Congressional District Method. I think it allows more direct democracy in the election of President. I also think it is a better method of federalism.

Of course, this could be abused via gerrymandering of districts. But if that will push our government system to getting rid of Single-Member Districts and instead have Representatives chosen via a method for state-wide proportional representation then all the better.

I agree with you sam mostly...but its also used to try and CREATE and take away districts and dilute districts along party lines. I think as you do the "system" itself is fine but not the process and the decision making to create that system....there needs to be a strict fair method of deciding the breakdowns.

 

[samsmart]

I agree with you sam mostly...but its also used to try and CREATE and take away districts and dilute districts along party lines. I think as you do the "system" itself is fine but not the process and the decision making to create that system....there needs to be a strict fair method of deciding the breakdowns.

Yup. But as long as we have Single-Member Districts it will never happen because of gerrymandering.

Maybe instead what we could do is a state-wide proportional representation system in which candidates get a percentage of electoral votes based on the percentage of popular votes they get.

For example, Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. In an election, if the Democratic candidate gets 51% of the popular vote and the Republican candidate gets 49% of the vote then the Democratic candidate gets 11 electoral votes while the Republican candidate gets 9 electoral votes.

Maybe that would be a fairer way of allocating electoral votes that isn't affected by gerrymandering.

 

[lpast]

Yup. But as long as we have Single-Member Districts it will never happen because of gerrymandering.

Maybe instead what we could do is a state-wide proportional representation system in which candidates get a percentage of electoral votes based on the percentage of popular votes they get.

For example, Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. In an election, if the Democratic candidate gets 51% of the popular vote and the Republican candidate gets 49% of the vote then the Democratic candidate gets 11 electoral votes while the Republican candidate gets 9 electoral votes.

Maybe that would be a fairer way of allocating electoral votes that isn't affected by gerrymandering.

That would be fairer but both sides would be afraid of it...depending on red or blue...they wouldnt want to take that chance and politicians HATE anything that controls their power written in stone....never happen I dont think

 

[haymarket]

Then say so. Not that you'll just read it.

The reason Lani Guinier was opposed was because she was a strong proponent of proportional representation.

Why are you playing games with this?

If you have something to present - then do so. Playing coy gets you nowhere and fails to advance any possible argument you may have. Your first one - comparing a closed party convention to the official mechanism that elects the President of the USA went nowhere.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

For example, Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. In an election, if the Democratic candidate gets 51% of the popular vote and the Republican candidate gets 49% of the vote then the Democratic candidate gets 11 electoral votes while the Republican candidate gets 9 electoral votes.

This is the by far the best way to go about changing the Electoral College if reforms are to be made. The only modification that I think I would make to your plan is to change how electoral votes are distributed. To continue with your example of Pennsylvania, my ideal method would be to distribute only the electoral votes that represent the House of Representatives via the proportional vote, and then the remaining 2 electoral votes go to the candidate who wins a plurality of the votes.

Using the results in your example both the Democrat and Republican would split the 9 electoral votes, but then the Democrat would win 11 total because he won the overall vote. That way you maintain the integrity of the proportional vote, but at the same reward the candidate that wins the state.

The one downside of proportional representation is how precise the Electoral College would be handing out electoral votes. In your example the Democrat won 51% of the vote, and yet he was awarded the equivalent of the 55% of the electoral votes. In your example the Democrat is given an extra 4% that they did not earn. You probably should have rounded the results of the Democrat down, even if it meant rounding the Republican up 1%. While it may be unfair to the Democrat, over 51 separate elections both candidates would have that happen to mitigate losses in a single state.

Maybe that would be a fairer way of allocating electoral votes that isn't affected by gerrymandering.

I definitely think that using the state as a whole rather than congressional districts is the way to go. Unlike a congressional district that can be gerrymandering into arbitrary boundaries, the borders of a state cannot.

 

[haymarket]

How about a truly proportional vote where each citizen gets one vote for president and the candidate who gets the highest proportion of citizen votes wins the office?

 

[mvymvy]

Yup. But as long as we have Single-Member Districts it will never happen because of gerrymandering.

Maybe instead what we could do is a state-wide proportional representation system in which candidates get a percentage of electoral votes based on the percentage of popular votes they get.

For example, Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. In an election, if the Democratic candidate gets 51% of the popular vote and the Republican candidate gets 49% of the vote then the Democratic candidate gets 11 electoral votes while the Republican candidate gets 9 electoral votes.

Maybe that would be a fairer way of allocating electoral votes that isn't affected by gerrymandering.

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.

 

[mvymvy]

This seems like a lot of effort to avoid a straight popular vote. Sad that we feel the need to erect all these buffers between the people and those who represent them.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

 

[mvymvy]

Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system and not reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania.

The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state as a whole. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.

Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania congressional districts were competitive.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.

When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.

Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.

 

[Thrilla]

ugh.. the national popular vote....

a bad idea , and likely unconstitutional.

there is a reason such folly was rejected by the Framers... and there's a reason why folks pushing it aren't pushing for an amendment to the Constitution ( which should be the only, and proper, way to change our system of federal elections) and instead circumventing it.

 

[mvymvy]

ugh.. the national popular vote....

a bad idea , and likely unconstitutional.

there is a reason such folly was rejected by the Framers... and there's a reason why folks pushing it aren't pushing for an amendment to the Constitution ( which should be the only, and proper, way to change our system of federal elections) and instead circumventing it.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

 

[poliblogs]

Like anything else politicians do, they may be able to have speaking points that make sense about why they want to do it. And of course there are reasons why these kinds of moves make sense in theory. That said, anyone who thinks that these moves are being made for any other purpose than winning the presidential election may be a bit naive.

 

[haymarket]

ugh.. the national popular vote....

a bad idea , and likely unconstitutional.

there is a reason such folly was rejected by the Framers... and there's a reason why folks pushing it aren't pushing for an amendment to the Constitution ( which should be the only, and proper, way to change our system of federal elections) and instead circumventing it.

And those reason that may have been valid in 1787 - whatever they may be - have since turned to dust with the arrival of the 21st century.

The idea that we are going to ask citizens to vote in an election and the 'winner' can be the person who the people did NOT cast their votes for as their first choice is absurd in the extreme.

 

[samsmart]

ugh.. the national popular vote....

a bad idea , and likely unconstitutional.

there is a reason such folly was rejected by the Framers... and there's a reason why folks pushing it aren't pushing for an amendment to the Constitution ( which should be the only, and proper, way to change our system of federal elections) and instead circumventing it.

Actually, the Constitution leaves it to the state legislatures to determine how their state's electoral votes are allocated.

It is tradition that the winner-take-all system works. However, states can determine for themselves. This is why we have the Congressional District Method in 2 states and why we have the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The states can choose for themselves to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

 

[samsmart]

The idea that we are going to ask citizens to vote in an election and the 'winner' can be the person who the people did NOT cast their votes for as their first choice is absurd in the extreme.

Well, to be fair, that doesn't happen all that often. More often than not the winner of the popular vote usually is the winner of the electoral vote.

 

[mvymvy]

Well, to be fair, that doesn't happen all that often. More often than not the winner of the popular vote usually is the winner of the electoral vote.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. Some insider Republicans believe under the current system in 2012, President Obama could win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote.

Come the end of voting on Election Day, most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.