Tinkering with the electoral college

[dan_bgblue]

Good idea or bad? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/19/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential/?test=latestnews)

[CitizenBBN]

Up to the states, as long as the federal system isn't touched I leave it to them.

Funny though that dems are now outraged by district level allocations but call for a popular vote system that is an even finer allocation. Likewise the GOP was against changing the system until they came up with a way to help themselves.

Gerrymandering is as old as the nation, and every political party has done it.

Now, IF the GOP can pull it off in some blue states and it sticks they get a big boost. The red states will still go overwhelmingly red but blue states would lose a lot of districts. it would chip into California, Pennsylvania, New York, all the big blue states. A lot more than it would chip into red states.

Up to the states. If anything it is in keeping with the Democrats calls for a more representative college system back when they lost to Bush II. Of course with it now favoring them they don't want it. Likewise the GOP didn't want it changed then, now they think it's a great idea. lol.

[CitizenBBN]

It would have one interesting side effect. It would significantly reduce the power of the "battleground" states like Ohio. Without a winner take all at a state level you have to campaign in battleground districts, not states. Voters in states like Kentucky would be more important, where for example the Louisville district may be a close race.

I like it a lot better than a single national vote total. Lots of federalism issues with that, and this is still up to the states. even if a state went to a proportional system based on total vote count it's still a state decision, and tha'ts a key for me.

[KeithKSR]

As Chuck says, it is up to each individual state. If the battleground states want their electoral votes to better reflect the will of the voters then that is what they should do. In the case of states like Ohio and Michigan a few large urban areas are dictating the entire state's electoral votes, and if they want to represent voters then splitting the electoral votes is desirable.

[KSRBEvans]

I didn't like it when the Democrats suggested tinkering (or doing away) with the Electoral College after the 2000 election, and I don't like hearing the GOP wanting to tinker with it now. IMHO the Electoral College is one of the best expressions, if not the best expression, of the federal nature of our system and should be left as is.

As to why many in the GOP are suggesting it now, and why it's a bad idea to do it for those reasons, IMHO Larry Sabato said it well here (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republican-electoral-college-plan-would-undermine-democracy/):


Republicans face a choice that can best be characterized by personalizing it. A healthy, optimistic party is Reaganesque, convinced that it can win the future by embracing it, and by making a positive case for its philosophy and candidates to all Americans. A party in decline is Nixonian and fears the future; it sees enemies everywhere, feels overwhelmed by electoral trends, and thinks it can win only by cheating, by subverting the system and stacking the deck in its favor. Whose presidency was more successful, Reagan’s or Nixon’s? Which man made the Republican brand more appealing?

[suncat05]

As Chuck says, it is up to each individual state. If the battleground states want their electoral votes to better reflect the will of the voters then that is what they should do. In the case of states like Ohio and Michigan a few large urban areas are dictating the entire state's electoral votes, and if they want to represent voters then splitting the electoral votes is desirable.

The same thing happened here in Florida too. The GOP clearly won the entire rural population, but the Dems carried ALL of the major population centers(Palm Beach, Broward & Miami-Dade........the Tampa area, the I-4 corridor with Orlando, and Jacksonville), so "his Highness" wins Florida because of the liberal/black voting block outnumbered the rest of the state in the metropolitan areas.
However, not sure that I would want to change the Electoral College on the federal level, or at the state level either.
But I do have a question. I have been hearing about a lot of re-districting talk with relation to changes in the 2010 Census numbers. Does that have any effect, in any manner, with regards to changing election results because of changes in the population? Anyone?

[KeithKSR]

But I do have a question. I have been hearing about a lot of re-districting talk with relation to changes in the 2010 Census numbers. Does that have any effect, in any manner, with regards to changing election results because of changes in the population? Anyone?


It has a huge impact on elections. The party in control at the state level will try to change Congressional districts so that their party has the greatest chance of success. With the majority of states being controlled at the State level by Republicans it would tend to favor the GOP in redistricting. Kentucky's redistricting took effect with the 2012 election, other states won't take effect until the 2014 midterm elections.

[suncat05]

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure about exactly how that might work.

[CitizenBBN]

I didn't like it when the Democrats suggested tinkering (or doing away) with the Electoral College after the 2000 election, and I don't like hearing the GOP wanting to tinker with it now. IMHO the Electoral College is one of the best expressions, if not the best expression, of the federal nature of our system and should be left as is.

As to why many in the GOP are suggesting it now, and why it's a bad idea to do it for those reasons, IMHO Larry Sabato said it well here (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republican-electoral-college-plan-would-undermine-democracy/):

At least what I've seen it doesn't change the Electoral College at all. It changes how individual states elect the electors to the college, which has always been a state level decision.

The idea is to have proportional electors, which 2 states do now. If they were chosen by congressional district it would create essentially a 1:1 alignment between electing the House and electing the President, with the 2 Senator electors being a question mark. Since the districts are set by population what it would really do is just change the granularity.

The result is an 80% vote in a district is the same as a 51% vote, where now an 80% vote in a state is the same as a 51% vote.

It would have several impacts, but one good one is it would spread the "battleground state" to battleground districts. In that sense voters would be more enfranchised b/c the campaigns would have to pay attention to a district like say Louisville whereas now they can ignore Kentucky altogether.

it's not cheating, nor is it Nixonian. It is a recognition that a few massive cities are having a huge impact on elections and that's not good for conservative values or free enterprise. So they want to gerrymander one way, the other guys another. that's as old as elections in the US, changing how votes are accumulated to your party's benefit.

As long as it doesn't change the Electoral College I don't have a problem with it. I have to think all the way through it, but I do like how it would broaden the voice Americans have in the Presidential election. Just focusing on Florida and Ohio wouldn't be enough any more.

[KeithKSR]

Keep in mind that state elections have not always determined how the electoral college members for each state would vote.