01-18-2013 07:48 AM - edited 01-18-2013 07:51 AM
They will try to cheat any way they can. Let's hope they are as unpopular with the popular vote as with the electoral votes.
After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.
"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.
Democrats are outraged at the potential change.
Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney's 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It's unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.
While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he "could go either way" on the change and doesn't plan to push it. But he said it's a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.
"It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion," Snyder said.
Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.
"We never really pushed it before," he said, adding that the bill wasn't designed to help one party more than the other.
Democrats aren't convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift – particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.
"This is nothing more than election-rigging," said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.
Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states – Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina – Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.
"This is a concept that's got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential," said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would "incite different levels of partisan acrimony." Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.
In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state's 20 votes.
Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.
"It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."
Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor's spokesman Kevin Harley said.
In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an "interesting idea" but that it's not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.
It's gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.
"I am open to that idea," Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. "But I would have to hear all the arguments."
All 10 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.
Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: "We can't sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage," Barrett wrote. "We can't let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain – just because they don't believe they can win in a fair election fight."
So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.
"The Electoral College has served the country quite well," said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.
He continued: "This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I'm worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn't mean we can't talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take."
01-18-2013 07:57 AM
Just cut to the chase and make it so the popular vote takes all.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>01-18-2013 07:59 AM
What do they think that will really achive, ultimately? Has to be one system for all states, not piecemeal as suits their figures, right? The only argument for democratic change to the electral college is to go entirely over to the popular vote. In this day and age I can see the point in that. As I recall, this would mean Obama would still have won twice, while Gore would have been in in 2000, and Bush - or whoever ran in his place - might well not have been able to win in 2004, so I can see that might not suit them. On the other hand, the popular vote was pretty **bleep** close this time, making it a much closer race than under the EC it appeared. What they are proposing is an unnecessary over-complication in the aim of adding to their seats. Transparent.
01-18-2013 08:15 AM
Funny how they aren't interested in campaign finance changes.
01-18-2013 08:18 AM
Philter wrote:Just cut to the chase and make it so the popular vote takes all.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
This is the correct answer. When the electoral college system was first put in place, computers weren't available, but the country was growing. I may not be correct, but it looks to me like the EC was initiated to simplify vote counting in a growing country.

01-18-2013 08:59 AM
Belva wrote:
Philter wrote:Just cut to the chase and make it so the popular vote takes all.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>This is the correct answer. When the electoral college system was first put in place, computers weren't available, but the country was growing. I may not be correct, but it looks to me like the EC was initiated to simplify vote counting in a growing country.
If it were that then that would be something but it looks like they want to combine the pop and ec votes together. 3 pop votes by 3 ec votes = 6 votes. So if a repug has 27 pop votes and 2 ec votes and a dem has 27 pop votes but 1 ec vote... that would make the repug the "leader" with 29 votes in total.
01-18-2013 09:04 AM
considering the changing demographics of american voters, this plan could well fall under the Law of Unintended Consequences.
in a similar manner the GOP-crafted voter ID laws ended up encouraging greater turnout by minorities in the recent election, who helped elect more dems.
01-18-2013 09:11 AM
Gerrymandering is not enough for the GOP?
01-18-2013 09:12 AM
01-18-2013 09:15 AM
normh wrote:
I support the change.
Before you go there, sometime in the future when the Democrats are no longer in favor, this change will help them as well.
You said that about the Patriot Act. Everyone lost on that piece of **bleep**.
01-18-2013 09:19 AM - edited 01-18-2013 09:19 AM
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
I support the change.
Before you go there, sometime in the future when the Democrats are no longer in favor, this change will help them as well.You said that about the Patriot Act. Everyone lost on that piece of **bleep**.
I did??? That is news to me!
F.Y.I. I have never supported the Patriot Act, nor the subsequent enactments of parts of it into law.
01-18-2013 09:24 AM
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
I support the change.
Before you go there, sometime in the future when the Democrats are no longer in favor, this change will help them as well.You said that about the Patriot Act. Everyone lost on that piece of **bleep**.
I did??? That is news to me!F.Y.I. I have never supported the Patriot Act, nor the subsequent enactments of parts of it into law.
Again, Gerrymandering voting districts did not help the GOP. New Jim Crow laws in the works?
01-18-2013 09:32 AM - edited 01-18-2013 09:34 AM
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
I support the change.
Before you go there, sometime in the future when the Democrats are no longer in favor, this change will help them as well.You said that about the Patriot Act. Everyone lost on that piece of **bleep**.
I did??? That is news to me!F.Y.I. I have never supported the Patriot Act, nor the subsequent enactments of parts of it into law.
Again, Gerrymandering voting districts did not help the GOP. New Jim Crow laws in the works?
Changing goal posts?
Is this about anything to keep your favored party in power to the exclusion of everyone and everything else? It sure appears to be. Though often overlooked, politics is as much about compromise as it is anything else. Politics should allow the voice of all the people to be heard, and not just the voice of the currently favored party.
You need to look up the definition of "Gerrymander" in your favorite dictionary.
01-18-2013 09:35 AM
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
I support the change.
Before you go there, sometime in the future when the Democrats are no longer in favor, this change will help them as well.You said that about the Patriot Act. Everyone lost on that piece of **bleep**.
I did??? That is news to me!F.Y.I. I have never supported the Patriot Act, nor the subsequent enactments of parts of it into law.
Again, Gerrymandering voting districts did not help the GOP. New Jim Crow laws in the works?
Changing goal posts?
Is this about anything to keep your favored party in power to the exclusion of everyone and everything else? It sure appears to be. Though often overlooked, politics is as much about compromise as it is anything else. Politics should allow the voice of all the people to be heard, and not just the voice of the currently favored party.
You said you did not support the Patriot Act. I accepted that. You do vote GOP, no?
01-18-2013 09:37 AM
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:
normh wrote:
I support the change.
Before you go there, sometime in the future when the Democrats are no longer in favor, this change will help them as well.You said that about the Patriot Act. Everyone lost on that piece of **bleep**.
I did??? That is news to me!F.Y.I. I have never supported the Patriot Act, nor the subsequent enactments of parts of it into law.
Again, Gerrymandering voting districts did not help the GOP. New Jim Crow laws in the works?
Changing goal posts?
Is this about anything to keep your favored party in power to the exclusion of everyone and everything else? It sure appears to be. Though often overlooked, politics is as much about compromise as it is anything else. Politics should allow the voice of all the people to be heard, and not just the voice of the currently favored party.
You need to look up the definition of "Gerrymander" in your favorite dictionary.
I have. When will old white males win another election?
01-18-2013 09:44 AM - edited 01-18-2013 09:45 AM
jzh wrote:You said you did not support the Patriot Act. I accepted that. You do vote GOP, no?
I vote across all party lines. I never vote straight party ticket.
01-18-2013 09:45 AM
This is no big deal. A few states do this already. What we need to do is eliminate the electoral college altogether.
01-18-2013 09:46 AM
normh wrote:
jzh wrote:You said you did not support the Patriot Act. I accepted that. You do vote GOP, no?
I vote across all party lines. I never vote straight party ticket.
you are a gadfly.
01-18-2013 09:50 AM - edited 01-18-2013 09:51 AM
jzh wrote:I have. When will old white males win another election?
I kicked the kids that I raised for another woman out when they were young enough to know everything. Funny, now in their mid and late 30's, they are learning what I had taught them in their adolescence.
01-18-2013 09:54 AM
Electorial votes should be given out as the congresional districts vote which is how as I see it they want to do things. In fact if I remember correctly moonie you agreed with this a few years ago. This way it's not just the cities that decide a state rural voters matter too.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC