The Electoral College save New Jersey's and New York's asses this year (and all of us, by extension). If we were counting the popular vote, especially if Obama had lost, everyone would be complaining how Frankenstorm depressed voter turnout in NJ/NY so we didn't get to count as many Democrat votes. With the Electoral College, that doesn't matter -- NY and NJ had enough voters to decide how the state would vote without having to worry about volume.
Im not in favor of ending the electoral college as I am of requiring them to split it according to percentages. The popular vote was 50.04% to 48.1%. If the electoral college was split by percentage (winner of the state rounds up): (D)51.48% (277 ECV) to (R)48.32% (260 ECV). California had 1 EC vote that would fall in the "other" category for .18%. An individuals vote would count much more and it would force candidates to campaign across the entire country. Just another note: DC had 240,000 votes and 3 EC's. That weights DC votes way too heavily.
LOL....so if you can't beat the Dems with the current rules then make new rules in selective states? You can't make this stuff up.
That is why they are dangerous at the moment. They are shifting from rigging the system to RIGGING the system, and that should scare everyone.
The Democrats need to follow Samuel L. Jackson's advice, because they do not understand the game. The Republicans do. The GOP understands that the only thing that registers with the American public is the final score, and if a side complains about things like voter ID laws, gerrymandering, poll-hour shenanigans, and this latest little gem after an electoral defeat, it only makes them look like whiners. Exhibit A - Al Gore, who merely got a majority of the votes. The Democrats need to get nasty, they need to do so without guilt, and they need to play the game by the actual rules, not some arbitrary civics-book standard that exists only in their minds. Otherwise, it's going to cost badly in coming elections.
I don't understand why the Republicans are up in arms for this. They do realize a popular vote tends to heavily favor urban population-dense areas (which overwhelmingly vote Democrat?). Democrats would have won five out of the last six elections, and they would continue to win elections by appealing to an urban base that is holding its' arms open for the Blues. As much as people hate people campaigning for the battleground states, all of them reflect America on a certain level. Look at this balance this year; large states, small states, rural states, military states, states full of the elderly, states full of libertarians---it lends itself to a balanced campaign approach that has to touch on a lot of the issues all of these diverse constituencies care about. Does running the incentive system to who can capture the cities best really benefit the nation as a whole? It sure benefits the Democrats a whole lot.
This would apportion electoral votes by who wins the congressional district. like this you can see how this would be advantageous in MI/WI/PA
Simple - instead of winning 0 votes from Pennsylvania, they could win some of them. Proportional representation benefits the weaker party in the state, so it makes perfect sense for the GOP to try this in clear blue states that they control. The problems are numerous, though. PA or one of those states talked about this a year or two ago. They got slammed in the media and pretty heavily by the national GOP. It makes the party look desperate and is a very transparent attempt at rigging the election. Maybe worse, it sparks a huge fight in the state. If you're the PA GOP, why on Earth would you want to tell people in your state - who voted decisively for Obama - that you're going to do something specifically to hurt Obama's party? And why on Earth would you do it in 2013, when the Dems would have a midterm election to overthrow you and reverse it? If you're going to be this ridiculous, at least do it in early 2016 so there's no chance to undo it.
So Republicans want it to be affected by something that can and will be gerrymandered. No thanks! Also it appears that they don't want to end it so much as end it in a way that will be favorable to them, and easy to tamper with via gerrymandering for the foreseeable future.
Yes, I realize this from the convoluted proposals actually being put into motion, but I'm talking about a switch to a pure popular national vote system (which is what I thought started this thread). If you put the whole nation into play rather than just blue states, things get more interesting. In any case, if the state GOP rigs it for proportional representation in deep blue states then they win, that's pretty clear. And yes, current trends and state legislatures favor the national GOP widely on this front...but are they not thinking short when they should be thinking long? Think of the bloody murder they'll scream when Texas, Arizona, Georgia hell any place with a significant urban population/dense clustering of minorities turns purple a whole lot quicker than they planned for (this is of course assuming Democrats have fighting spirit in them, never an easy assumption to make.)
Gotcha - Republicans aren't at all clamoring for a national popular vote system, though. The NPV movement is essentially mostly taking hold in left-leaning states.
And how advantageous it might be for Democrats in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona, should they ever take those state legislatures and governorships (a first wave of those states turning purple?). Hell, if 2014 turns out to be a complete reversal of 2010, and a bloodbath, then all bets are off. Georgia's 2nd, 4th, 5th, 12th and 13th haven't voted in Republican representatives since 2003. And Dems hold 12 seats in Texas. Brewer can't technically run in Arizona again, Perry might be a little worse for wear and exposed, Michigan and Pennsylvania would be coming up again (and don't think those blue and union voters won't be pissed). Republicans can dream of a 350 EV win for Romney. That's the past. What about the future? Thinking short rather than thinking long.
A lot of bitter Republicans after this election seemed (at least to me) to be fighting for the national popular vote system after it seemed Romney had won that; certainly the thread starter seemed to be doing so. I thought this thread was about that, then realized it was a knee-jerk reaction thread, and that apparently, Republicans are onto bigger and better things in their eternal quest to win elections, no matter the cost. Learn something new every day. Having their pie and eating it if they just want to rig blue states up. Nothing surprising of course (though still maddening).
I think electoral college votes could be better allocated by the states, but the state votes shouldn't be eliminated. It would defeat the purpose of having a United States of America. Why not then just get rid of all states and have a state-less country?
