Weather
Republicans Seek to Change How Electoral Votes Are AllocatedEmory University political science professor Alan Abramowitz, who considers the Carrico proposal and those like it to be "profoundly undemocratic" because it skews election results toward the party that has drawn gerrymandered congressional districts, found that if all states had allocated electoral votes in 2012 by congressional district, Romney would have taken 276 electoral votes (and with them the presidency) to Mr. Obama's 262 electoral votes. That's despite Mr. Obama's nearly 5 million vote advantage in the popular vote. (Abramowitz' calculation was based on the notion that the two at-large electors would go to the statewide popular vote winner, not whoever won the most congressional districts.) According to Abramowitz, Romney would have won 12 out of 18 electoral votes in Ohio, nine out of 16 electoral votes in Michigan, 12 out of 20 electoral votes in Pennsylvania, and five out of 10 electoral votes in Wisconsin - despite losing all four states, in some cases by large margins. (Because of incomplete data, he had to estimate from previous data in some Pennsylvania districts.) It's no coincidence that the states where Republicans are pushing proposals to shift to allocation based on congressional districts were all won by Mr. Obama in November - but are controlled by Republicans on a statewide level. Reince Priebus, the newly reelected chair of the Republican National Committee, said Friday that while such efforts are a "state issue," he is "pretty intrigued by it" and believes "in some cases they should look at it." In Michigan, Rep. Pete Lund, a Republican who plans to introduce a bill soon, told the Detroit News that it would make the system "more representative of the people -- closer to the actual vote." Lund, who introduced a similar measure last year, added that part of the reason it did not get traction lat time is that there "were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take (electoral) votes from him." It's not clear just how far these proposals will get this time around: The Virginia plan may well not get out of committee, since two Republican state senators on the committee on record as opposing it. Even if it does clear the legislature, a spokesman for Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va., said Friday he would oppose the measure. Similar measures have been introduced in the past and failed to get anywhere - and it's worth noting that it hasn't always been by Republicans. As Deeds acknowledged, Virginia Democrats pushed similar bills back when they were regularly losing the state of a presidential level. Opponents to such proposals point out that moving to such a system would have the effect of making the candidates far less interested in campaigning in what had previously been swing states - depriving the state of millions of dollars that would have otherwise flowed in during the campaign. Rob Richie, executive director of the nonprofit electoral reform group FairVote, said that moving to a system of allocation based on congressional district would shift candidates' focus of to suburban districts, since those are the ones that tend to be competitive. "The presidency would be decided not in America, but suburban America," he said. Richie, who advocates a system by which states agree to allocate their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, called the proposals "the wrong fix for a real problem." |
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled.
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
|
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
Guest said on Monday, Jan 28 at 4:06 PM
gee I'm all for that. But what I predict is that the GOP only wants to divvy up the electoral votes in contested states. In heavy Republican states I doubt they will want to extend that privilege to Democrats. Do you think they will want to cede electoral votes in say Texas to Democrats? If they used the system they want in contested states, it would have given Obama 16 of the 38 electoral votes in Texas. I doubt the GOP would be down for that.
112400641gee said on Monday, Jan 28 at 3:49 PM
just get rid of the electoral system and let the people choose!!!
112399611Baggins said on Monday, Jan 28 at 10:53 AM
G.O.P. Gooffy,Odie and Pinoccio
112377356Guest said on Monday, Jan 28 at 10:38 AM
There are plenty of states out there (look at Michigan) that also had more Democrat votes for U.S. house seats but have far more Republican representatives. I don't care how you try to justify it, IT IS WRONG! How would any of you GOP feel if you lived in a state and more people voted Republican but had more Democratic representatives? Imagine if we had two Democratic senators and a Democratic representative, had far more Republican votes and always voted Republican for president yet somehow end up with the Dem's in power. Well that's what some states are dealing with because of the gerrymandering done in 2010. Even with that the GOP couldn't take the White House and now wants to rig the system even more so they can win (unfairly and undemocratically). I challenge any Republican to look at the results and prove me wrong.
112375771Joe said on Monday, Jan 28 at 8:49 AM
If you can't win by popular vote--the Republicans will just "fix it". Even Republican governors are backing away because we voters aren't stupid and it will backlash on them.
112365671Add a comment
Most Popular