Sore Loser Republicans Want to Rewrite the Rules

Some In GOP Want New Electoral College Rules
by ALAN GREENBLATT
January 25, 2013 3:02 PM
Not many Americans are fans of the Electoral College. But trying to change the way electoral votes are allocated makes lots of people unhappy, too.
That's what Republicans in a number of states are finding just now. There are a half-dozen states that President Obama carried last November where both the legislature and the governor's office are controlled by the GOP — Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia.
In most of those states, there are efforts under way to change how electoral votes are distributed.
"I think it's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Reince Priebus, who was just re-elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
A bill in Virginia might get a vote as early as next week. It would award most electoral votes by congressional district, setting aside two votes to be given to the candidate who carries the most districts in the commonwealth.
Currently, every state but Maine and Nebraska awards all its electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. (Those two states have systems that would allocate electors based on congressional district results, but so far neither has split their electoral college votes because a single candidate has swept the state.)
If changes such as the Virginia bill had been in place last year, Obama would have won far fewer electoral votes. In Virginia, he would have taken four electoral votes rather than all 13.
Democrats therefore have characterized the Republican proposals as "sore loser" bills, an effort to game the system in states where their presidential candidates have struggled.
"They're trying to win by rigging the process," says Graeme Zielinski, communications director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party. "They seem consumed by this idea that they need to rig elections."
Republicans counter that changing the system could more accurately reflect the popular vote. Why should a candidate who carries a state with 51 percent of the vote get 100 percent of its electors?
"The goal is very simple," says Erik Arneson, spokesman for Pennsylvania Senate Republican Leader Dominic Pileggi. "It's to more closely align the electoral vote in Pennsylvania with the popular vote."
Pileggi tried to switch to a system based on congressional district voting in time for the 2012 election. His new bill, which will be introduced next month, would award electoral votes based on popular-vote percentages.
Under this plan, Obama, who won 52 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania in November, would have gotten 52 percent of the state's electoral votes. (Rounding would favor the statewide winner.)
Pileggi offered these changes to answer criticism that awarding electoral votes by congressional district would unfairly reflect the partisan gerrymandering that is often a major factor in how district lines are drawn.
That's what has Democrats upset about proposals such as the one in Virginia. Democrats currently have an Electoral College advantage, thanks to their success in most of the large states.
Changing the current system would give a boost to Republicans. In many states, Democrats may carry the overall vote, but they tend to be concentrated in fewer, densely populated metropolitan areas. The GOP might dominate in more districts because its voters are more spread out.
"Distributing electoral votes by congressional district is a terrible idea," says George Edwards, a visiting professor of American government at Oxford University. "Such a system would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama winning the popular vote by millions of votes."
Some Republicans have come out against the idea of tampering with electoral-vote allocation, out of concern that it might skew the outcome.
"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and they beat us in the fourth,' " Will Weatherford, the Republican speaker of the Florida House, told the Tampa Bay Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."
Over the past few years, Democrats have sought to make their own electoral vote changes. Eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that would grant their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.
"No matter where you land on the reforms, the current system is broken and has to be fixed," says Laura Brod, a consultant to the National Popular Vote Initiative.
The popular-vote laws would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes go along with the idea. So far, the effort is well short of that goal, with the nine jurisdictions representing 132 electoral votes.
It's possible that the GOP will fall short in its current efforts, as well.
"Nobody is satisfied with the current system," says Arneson, the Pennsylvania Senate aide, "and none of the alternatives have generated a consensus."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli.../some-in-gop-want-new-electoral-college-rules


An attempt to make the popular vote even more irrelevant. Nice, good job GOP.

 

If can't win on the issues, you can't win with your policies, you can't win calling half the country lazy, you can't win obstructing everything and then blaming the other guys, you can't win disenfranchising minorities, you can't win attacking women, and you can't win with an ever decreasing old white bigoted male base, you simply game the system and change the rules. Republicans are pathetic.

 

States awarding Electoral Votes proportionally according to the popular vote is what I would prefer to see us move to.

 

I would prefer to be rid of the EC entirely.

 

Me too.

But that would require an amendment. And since the only legislative actions Congress can seem to pass are those naming buildings...it is very unlikely to happen.

 

That is exactly what the Democrats proposed or at least real close;

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...nal-amendment-disposing-of-electoral-college/
That was only 3 months ago, but with politics like they are today, the 2 parties will never agree at the same time.

 

I think we have to figure out if we want to operate as one country or fifty individual states. This just isn't working anymore. Blame who you want to blame but the system itself is broken and may not be fixable. Not with the bought and paid for yahoos we have representing "us" these days.

 

There is only one way you can do that - get rid of he constitution. I realize there is a lot you do not like about it, but I think yo will find there is a reason it has lasted as long as it has and part of that reason is (or was) that we operated as both 50 states and one nation.

 

There is certainly a reason that our representatives and senators are elected the way they are per the Constitution and why we operate on both a local, state and national level. It gives all the people more of a voice and (a chance that) someone will represent their (more) individual needs.

But the President is a national office representing the entire country. And, in my opinion, should be voted on as such (popular vote).

As it is now, there are only a few states that matter in a national presidential election. The rest are a foregone conclusion. That makes a large portion of the country feel 'disenfranchised' for lack of a better term. Sure, they can still vote but their vote is really meaningless when the whole state is given to one candidate regardless of winning percentage.

 

I also think there is a good chance that a popular vote would act as a moderating force on the extremism of the 2 parties. And possibly increase the possibility of third parties being heard even if not elected.

The downside is that I am sure I would be subjected to much more political advertising and canvasing than currently. lol The only presidential political activity we get here now is just enough to remind us who is running.

 

Actually, Senators are not elected per the constitution. They are to be chosen by the state legislatures. It was not until the 17th amendment not passed until 1914 that Senators were elected. That method actually has a lot to be said for it. You get better politicians (wheelers and dealers as opposed to the negative connotations of today) rather than winners of a popularity contest.

 

The amendment process allows for changes. The problem is that those that would have make the changes are the real problems.

 

I will assume you meant "would have [to] make the changes". All I have to say to that is it was your idea, not mine. Until you entirely rewrite the Constitution, we are 50 states and one nation. That is not an "or" proposition.

 

Amendments are still part of the Constitution, IMO. Otherwise we are screwed on the Bill of Rights. But yes, they are not elected how the Constitution originally dictated.

Good or bad? I am partial to the idea of direct elections, good or bad.

 

Perhaps it deserves its own thread, but I think this story is symptomatic of the slimy "we can't win under the rules, so let's change the rules" route that Republicans are taking:

"GOP Version2013: Battling Not Just Democrats but Democracy" | The Nation

 

And this surprises you because? When the Democrats were in control and had the opportunity, they did exactly the same thing. In fact, before there were Democrats and Republicans,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

 

LOL typical, pointing fingers - they did it so it makes us doing it right. Rlm, you're pretty pathetic.

 

Complete scumbaggery. The honoring of Thomas Jackson on King jr. day just shows how racist these bigoted dirtbag rednecks are, thanks for the article Recusant.

 

What the republicans above fail to consider is the history of the country, why it was formed in the first place. They keep fixing elections like this and people just may do something to regain democracy here again.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Oprah's on 24/7 now so, they may as well continue rigging the system with impunity.

Really though, lawmakers have far too much power. But what check is there? The Supreme Court? It's not nearly as corrupt, but it's not exactly neutral in anything either..