E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA spokesman for Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell says the governor opposes the GOP legislation that would award the state's electoral votes in presidential elections by congressional district -- instead of the current winner-take-all system.
Related: GOP looks to change the rules, not their party
"The governor does not support this legislation. He believes Virginia's existing system works just fine as it is. He does not believe there is any need for a change," said spokesman Tucker Martin.
This opposition by McDonnell essentially kills the chances that the Electoral College change would become law in the state. In addition, another Republican state senator in Virginia today said he also was against the change.
The way we elect the president is being challenged in key states by Republicans who want to award electoral votes by congressional district instead of a winner-take-all to the candidate who carries the state. Had this process been in place during the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have won. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Leave a Comment:
The Wisconsin Phenomenon
The progressive movement of the early twentieth century had deep roots in the rural populism of the American middle west, as farmers begin banding together to combat a growing Corporatism that began shifting the hierarchy of the Republican Party toward Big Finance, the large Corporate Trusts, and Wall Street.
The nomination of former Republican Party President Theodore Roosevelt, to head the ticket of the Progressive Party in the election of 1912, resulted in splitting the Republican Party between its hierarchy, who backed the re-election of President Taft and a Roosevelt led Third Party Movement. The result was the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson and a Democratic Party, which over the next approximate 50 years (through LBJ) adopted most of the Progressive Party's platform.
During this same approximate period, the United States moved from a land-based collection of "sovereign states," dominated by agriculture toward a population-based collection of industrialized urban centers, stripping State Legislatures of much of their power and influence on a Federal government steadily moving toward independent power of its own, based on the urban centers and the proposition of one person = one vote. And, to organize this new power also came the rise of urban "machine politics" dominated by the latest wave of immigration and/or newly enfranchised voters.
Ultimately, the urban centers were victorious, as the population both grew and transitioned away from rural agriculture (and I'd add basically all commodities, particularly oil, to the agricultural component of American politics).
While virtually every state in the union contains this urban-rural division, the urban side clearly won out in most "blue states." For the most part, rural American is Red State America, and the "swing states" tend to be the states in which there is still an approximate balance between the two. Examples are the intra-state battles of urban and rural Florida, urban and rural Illinois, etc.
As this "shift" occurred and the Democratic Party became increasingly the Party of Cities, rural liberal populism began to feel increasingly deserted by a Party they'd help build. Certainly, this became true in Wisconsin, the "home of rural, liberal populism." And, the Republican Party capitalized on the dissasatisfaction of the rural, populist Democrats with the growing power of Wisconsin Democratic urban "machine politics." [Not just now, but earlier as well...remember that Joe McCarthy was a Wisconsin Republican].
Shortly before the Walker recall vote, one of media organizations captured on video, Governor Walker talking to a supporter in a one-on-one conversation and caught him explaining the strategy of "divide and conquer." I would contend that this was a reference to dividing the two sources of state Democratic power...rural populism from urban machine politics. How was that accomplished? Largely by pointing to national Democrats representing national media and national teacher's unions, who chose to try and use Wisconsin as a "national battleground" for national issues, that further widened the latent divisions of the populist and machine politics division.
That above "phenomeon" is precisely the Republican strategy for shifting to Presidential/Vice Presidential selection on the basis of Republican gerrymandered Congressional districts.
Would it be effective? Probably not. Or, if so, for a very short, temporary period of shifting demographics, as a sort of "rear-guard" action of a dwindling Republican Army in retreat. As a viable political party, they would be far, far better off to "negotiate a peace" by reaching out to the minorities, who will shortly dominate American politics and by bringing their economic policies into the 21st century of a global economy and toward the rebuilding of an American middle class capable of competing in that global economy.
Why won't they do this? Money. It is far less expensive to invest - directly or indirectly - in the global emerging economies than it is to, through taxation, rebuild an infrastructure at home, for the future competitiveness of an American middle class...and to encourage a smaller, more limited and less expensive government, based on a two class system of rich and poor at home, while chasing the best returns on investment abroad or through U.S. corporations, who basically act as proxies for the same course.
If the talk had been about splitting the electoral votes by a percentage of popular vote this wouldn't look like an attempt to hijack and election, but splitting them based on district? That's absurd. Its a clear attempt to subvert the will of the public.
Agreed...it's as if taking the worse feature of the electoral college and expanding it. I think there is probably more popular support to drop the electoral college altogether and elect by the popular vote majority.
I also think that savvy Republican politicians, such as Barbour, understand that that is the reaction this strategy would bring and do not want to "rock the boat" harder than State Republican legislatures have already rocked it, via gerrymandering. Remember, that with 1,2 million fewer votes than Democrats received, House Republicans were able to retain a 33 seat House majority.
i guess that depends on your point of view ---- statistically, a district-based electoral vote is much closer to the "will of the people", than is a "winner take all" policy. ----- example..... nebraska ---- before they changed their setup, all their electoral votes went red. ---- now, one district goes blue. ---- those democrats in that blue district can now say their vote actually has meaning.
Hmmm...only if you discount gerrymandering. That allowed House Republicans to retain a 33 seat majority, while simultaneously losing the cumulative popular vote by 1.2 million votes. In Nebraska, I would assume that the total State-wide vote is more rural than urban, thus the rural voters outnumbered the Omaha area voters and carried the entire state. By drawing the district lines along urban-rural lines, Nebraska Democrats picked up an electoral vote.
Personally, I am against the Parties drawing congressional district lines to create "safe seats" because to some degree that is where the polarization between the parties begins and it strengthens the hand of the partikes themselves.
If the districts had to be better balanced between parties, candidates would need to "compromise" to win elections and would take those compromise positions to Washington. By drawing district lines, the parties tailor the districts to their specific platforms, preventing the rise of third party movements and enforcing a "top-to-bottom" political system, rather than a "bottom-to-top" system.
Top-to-bottom tends to naturally give greater weight to wealthy donors...in both parties.
the problem is that our electoral system was not designed for statistical correction. ---- in order to be more statistically accurate, we would need to add about 100 districts, which would mean another 100 house seats. ----- i think you would then find that the electoral vote would be much closer in percentage to that of the popular vote.
Perhaps, but it is also difficult to gauge the impact of a gerrymandered district on voter turn out. If you live in a district that is heavily weighted in favor of Republicans (or vice versa) then turning out Republicans to vote may be more difficult, particularly if there isn't enthusiasm for those on the national ticket.
Also, not sure what you mean by "statistical correction?" Since the House now has a fixed number of representatives, those seats are apportioned among the states according to each census, with the exception being the smallest states in population (7), since every state is entitled to at least one representative. As the population grows, states entitled to only a single repressentive would tend to be "overly represented." I suppose there is also some statistical inaccuracy imposed by some states being just shy of the population needed for another district and/or just over. Is that the distortion you are referencing?
Overall, primarlly due to Republican strength in State Legislatures, their "gerrymandering advantage" goes to them, over Democrats, who generally do the same thing, but in fewer states.
yes, that is the distortion that occurs ----- based on the rule of lowest common denominator, which in this case would be wyoming, with one house seat, you would then allocate seats to all the other states based upon how their population compares to wyoming's. ---- i'm uncertain of the exact number, but i think i heard once that you would need to add about 100 house seats. ----- anyway.... if a person wants to sit down and do the math, it's not very difficult to figure out.
wyoming currently has a population of a little over 1/2 million ----- so.... for instance, if your state had 2 million people, then you would get 4 house seats. ---- if your state had 10 million people, you would get 20 house seats, etc etc etc.
based on that, we would need over 530 house seats ----- probably going to need to consider a change to the system anyway, if we add puerto rico to the mix.
btw.... if you are against adding 100 house seats, think about this...... in the scenario which prompted this article, under the current number of house seats, romney wins ---- but if you add 100 more districts, obama wins.
Actually, I think they take the total census population and divide by 435 seats, then apportion accordingly, subtracting or adding seats to a State delegation, based on population changes. So, on average, one member represents around 650,000 people, but States that have fewer than that are entitled to at least one representative, so their single representative could represent fewer than the 650,000...as in Wyoming.
But...as they say...who's counting?
i know how apportionment works ----- the problem is that it doesn't reflect the overall change, the state to state change , in population. ------ in order for a person's vote to have more equal weight, they need to use wyoming as the lowest common denominator, and increase the number of house seats to 535. ------ as it stands, states like wyoming, ND, SD, MT and a few others, have a statistical bias in their favor ---- their vote has more meaning than the more populous states, such as CA, NY, or TX. ---------------- if the republicans in virginia pass the electoral change, then to counteract that effect, you would definitely want to increase the total house seats to 535.
Ah...OK, I thought you suggesting that that's the way it works now...you are making a suggestion.
But, wouldn't that give the more populated states MORE representation? And, the Blue States, which perhaps I wrongly assumed you would not favor, would gain representation.
Plus, your suggestion would establish a principle leading to a larger and larger House of Representatives.
that is true ---- the more populous blue states would gain representation. ------ and yes, depending upon the population growth in the least populous states, you would need to make future adjustments. ----- how long have we gone without an adjustment ??? ------ seems to me, we are way overdue for one. ------ even if you only made the major adjustment every 50 years, you'd have a more accurate situation than what currently exists. ------------------ personally, i favor using only the popular vote.
Then, on this point, I may have a more conservative perspective than your own. I haven't made up my mind yet. The founding fathers clearly desired a "conservative system," which made political change difficult and gave an edge to the status quo.
But, one has to consider the situation they found themselves in, in 1787. The Articles of Confederation required unanimious consent among the 13 colonies, in order to accomplish virtually anything. As a result, they were collectively on the verge of defaulting on the Revolutionary War debt incurred during the War. The proposal of a relatively strong central government was a risky and bold step, which many of those who were successful politicians in their own right, at the State level opposed, including those who had fought for independence from Britain.
The Federalists had to walk a thin line, to essentially bring the Revolution to an end, under a central government, almost a counter-Revolution, to gain the advantages of a unified nation capable of withstanding both foreign invasion and internal insurrection, which - in turn - was necessary to create a period of stability for growth.
That involved a conservative approach to the status quo, to protect the former colonial "establishment" (less the Tories), from on-going populist rebellion, while at the same time disagreeing with many of them over the necessity for a strong central government.
They certainly feared too much centralized power, but they also feared the rule of anarchy.
i agree ---- however, whenever possible, i believe in states rights ,and only very limited federal powers. ------ i believe many of our social issues should be resolved at the state level, without federal intervention.
of course you do you would, you're a conservative white guy....but in states like mississippi where some would love to have the right to murder, and disenfranchise people, based on skin color, a state where....only fifty percent of mississippi republicans believe interracial marriage should be legal(I'm in an interracial relationship and from Mississippi just google the poll)....so your states rights can go rot in the darkest recesses of hell!......of course you would love for the federal government to have no power so you and your buddies can freely, discriminate, and disenfranchise with no consequences...oh yeah and don't give me any crap about mississippi not being the racist hell hole its always been....because I have to visit the filth pit to see relatives...I stay for no more than 72 hrs at a time and I try to spend as little money as possible while there!!
i have never said the federal govt should have zero power ----- what i have said, is that the powers of the federal govt should be limited. ------- all other powers not needing federal oversight should be reserved to the states. ----- think about how many already are..... drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, doctor's licenses, law licenses, and many many others. ------- and in the case of a state allocating its electoral votes, that also should be the state's decision to make. ---- you would need to amend the constitution to do otherwise.
...hold a constitutional convention and do away with the electoral college. it's an anachronism from days when high-speed connections depended on how fast your horse could travel! and while this constitutional convention is going on, let's reform the way government operates, beginning with a totally ineffective congress!
That isn't going to happen without another revolution, and without firearms to match what the military has, it won't happen at all. Those in power will never give up that power without a fight, which is precisely why the founding fathers saw fit to keep the population well armed in the first place.
While the right to bear arms is an individual right, the militia clause suggests that it is given to repel invasion and suppress insurrections, rather than revolt against the State itself.
dan ----- what makes you so certain that the military would feel compelled to fire upon people who might be their own friends or neighbors ??? ----- i respectfully submit that you would see a healthy number of military personnel resigning from their jobs, if that scenario occurred.
A reluctance to fire would be more likely with a State National Guard unit, than the regular military. And, I'd suggest we are not even close to insurrection, other than in the deluded minds of a small minority of wackos.
isn't there something in the constitution which forbids the military from involvement within our borders ???
Nope...you are thinking of the "Posse Comitatus Act" that prevents Federal intervention into state and local law issues. However, there is also an Insurrection Act that essentially nullifies the "Posse Comitatus Act" in the last resort, but does delay or slow Federal intervention.
The bottom line is that a President may declare that an emergency is beyond (or ignored by) state and local authorities and may either deploy federal troops or "nationalize" State National Guard forces to restore control to ensure federal law enforcement.
ok ----- thanks for that ---- i'm at work and don't have a lot of time to do research inbetween customers. --------------------- i still wonder how many of our military would follow an order to fire upon our own citizens. ---- i had no trouble firing on the enemy in vietnam, but i doubt very much i would follow the order to do so here in the states. ---- i guess it would depend upon the scenario taking place.
Presumably, they would have been firing at you first. Being shot at can change an attitude very quickly.
yes, of course ------however, the question in my mind to even be present at a scenario would depend upon the assumed motivation of the participants. ---- for instance, if the overall movement involved many thousands, or millions of people, and the basis of their revolt was a reason for which i felt was justified, i would be more likely to join them rather than be placed in a scenario where i might be ordered to fire upon them. ----- especially if i knew some of the people who were part of the revolt. ----- we do have the right to revolt under the right conditions.
obviously, if you're being fired upon, you will return fire ----- but i have little respect for any soldier who would fire upon his own countrymen without significant provocation. ----- after all, you can't be fired on if you are not present. ----- and if you cannot justify your presence within your own conscience, then you shouldn't be there.
Hmmm...gotta go. Despite the need for reform in many areas of our society, IMO, we are still a stable society that lives under the rule of law. I would have to see a great deal of more totalitarianism than exists today to come to the conclusion that rebellion was a solution. Relative to most, we are still an incredibly free society.
i hope you are right ----- however, as in the song "turn turn turn", by the byrds..... for everything there is a time, a purpose ---- a time to fight, a time to die. -------- unfortunately, i can foresee a time when the minority in this country will be justified in fighting for their survival. ----- it's all about trends, and i don't like the trend of where we seem to be headed.
"A reluctance to fire would be more likely with a State National Guard unit, than the regular military."
May 4, 1970, Kent State University.
No. The Constitution was constructed with some flexible language. So, instead of dismantling, adjust accordingly. The congressional district elections were primarily how elections were held in this country not so long ago. But this generation doesn't remember that. As time has passed, a strong lobbying liberalist agenda overshadowed a more impartial system of the electoral college methods that were used at the time.
Like the local courts, who renders the verdict? Verdicts are derived by a jury based on a majority vote, but the winner takes all in the outcome.
However, there are non-jury trials where the judge renders a ruling. Sometimes this is required in order to maintain impartiality. Yes, there are corrupt justices, but they are not the majority.
Regardless, the judicial system has built-in options for the citizen, very much like the electoral college system has built-in options.
Amending sweeping changes in our supreme law is a dangerous proposition. The solution is to think of the flexibility written into the language of the law that exists and this is the genius of the founding fathers. A base of law is rolled out onto the table, for example. That base can be adjusted slightly here and there to accommodate the time, place, need, issue-handling per se. The adjustments must remain within the constitutional requisites. If in time, that solution fails to withstand the problem inherent, then a constitutional amendment must be considered. But, this must be a last resort as the 9th and 10th amendments passionately defend the rest of the law, warning that none may be disregarded as being more important than the others but that they all work in harmony to compliment each other. When you add or subtract from the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, an entirely new set of problems rises for the nation to accept and deal with. It is a burden.
Immigrants bringing government methods to the United States might prefer to change the constitution to mirror some of what they left for comfort, familiarity, or to establish dominance for their homeland.
Multigenerational United States families will tend to defend what they have had in place in the course of history, even if it is painful to endure.
When these two factions meet to discuss solutions, energy is generated in 2013 by information technology and media that overwhelmingly influences minds in one direction or another. These two resources are the most persuasive and what unconstitutionally wins elections today in the United States. Without these two resources candidates will lose.
You have permitted this. So, rather than attack the constitution, consider a more impartial method and implement it to protect the cause of liberty rather than your own personal agenda.
You’ll find this is what the challenge was for the Founding Fathers. To look above at the larger picture over what their own states wanted them to do.
Ask what thing benefits the most?
The answer is the solution to this problem.
I find this an interesting response from the local GOPs, if they had made this change for the 2012 election then Romney would have actually gotten something out of Virginia.
Might the ability to accurately identify legal voters and count the votes be a higher priority...I applaud the effort to address the electoral college but if the vote is bogus so is the government...
There is no indication of wide-spread voter fraud in this country. Both parties are entitled to poll observers and may file complaints if they believe fraud is occurring.
Thank God, one Republican has come out against this attempt at robbing voters. When they lost the presidential vote, it was not a problem with voters not getting an even shake in their votes, it was a problem with the Republican views and platform. This had to have been one of the sleaziest acts to try steal votes and voter preference.
so...... when nebraska did this, and the democrats benefited from it, was that also stealing ???
Lord liberals act as if stupidity is a virtue.
Sorry, but they are NOT "acting"!!!!!
Wait...the GOP is saying that the Constitution is not good enough? They want to tear it up and make new rules?
what does a state changing its policy for its electoral votes have to do with the USA constitution ??? ------ all states have the right to apportion their electoral votes, rather than do a "winner takes all" approach. ------ in case you forgot, we already have 2 states that do so. ----- and in the case of nebraska, the democrats gained an electoral vote as a result.
I can see why the idiot f*cking republicans think they need to rig the vote. They tried to buy elections and that didn't work. They tried to disenfranchise voters and that didn't work. All they have left is to try and appeal to a majority of America (and that won't happen) or rig the vote.
When this doesn't work for them they will demand that we take away the right to vote for Women, Minorities, and people under 60.
where were you when nebraska divvied up their electoral votes ??? ---- oh yeah, i guess in your mind that was ok, because democrats benefited from it.
Whatever, Rupaul.
figures ---- can't even spell my name correctly. ----- you are nothing but a hypocrit. ----- as long as whatever happens benefits you, it's good, but if someone else comes up with a similar idea, and it doesn't benefit you, then it's a bad idea.
ron..........
and you can't spell hypocrite.
Watch out now, Ronpal!!! The Spelling Police is out in in full force!
guess again, depraw ---- i just checked the dictionary, and you can spell it either way. ----- which explains why spellcheck didn't underline it in red.
put this in your pipe and smoke it, depraw ----- i might hit the wrong key on the keyboard once in awhile ---- after all, i have arthritis, and i'm nearly 70 ----- but when it comes to spelling, even without spellcheck, you've got a better chance of winning the lottery than of catching me making a spelling error.
Figures don't lie...
But Liars figure!!
It's so unfair to the republicans to ask them to win elections by getting more votes than the other guy. They can't do that and pander to the billionaires, crazy people, and blithering idiots that make up their base all at the same time.
We need to handicap the elections for the idiot f*cking republicans. If republicans get 49% of the vote they win. No... That's still to much to ask from them. If they get 30% of the vote they win. But then again they can't go around sounding as crazy and stupid as they want and still get 30% so lets let them win with 1%. Or do you idiot f*cking republicans think forcing you pathetic twits to get 1% of the vote to win an election is still an unfair advantage for the democrats?
you kiss your mother with that mouth ???
It is up to each state to determine how to allocate their electoral votes. It is NOT a requirement that a state MUST award ALL it's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in said state. If your state does so, fine. It is not up to you to decide how other states do things.
Your hostility makes you seem worse than the people you are attempting to describe.
I'm highly in favor of the change, personally. I don't like the fact the popular vote winner in a state like California currently gets all 55 EC votes, no matter how close the popular vote in that state, and no matter how many Congressional districts in that state vote for another candidate. I feel the same about Texas, and its 38 EC votes, of course, and all the other states that are winner-take-all.
Another interesting aspect to this question is making such a change in all states would mean third parties would quickly become more important. Perhaps a lot more important, over time.
i agree ----- and it's about time a 3rd party candidate should have a reasonable chance at winning.
Exactly. If you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, at least at the present time, your vote for President is virtually meaningless. I agree with the change, also!
n/a
This should be a wake up call to anyone who thinks there are no consequences for choosing not to vote in those "unglamorous" state elections.
Too bad we can't get this same point across to Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee, both of which continue to be missing in action during mid-term and other non-presidential election years.
Maybe more Republicans simply realize the true value of controlling state legislatures. This is why they happen to control more states, even though the Democrats do well in national elections. Don't the Democrats always blame "low voter-turnout" as the reason they lost in the mid-terms of 2010? And then after that, it is because of gerrymandering.
Whatever his motives, I applaud the Gov. of Virginia's position on this issue. If there isn't one uniform standard for the entire country in presidential elections, the entire notion of them being free & fair becomes a farce. Let's hope enough citizens raise hell about this to prevent any state from trying to fix elections with cheap stunts like this .
i can't believe this ---- how many people are going to repeat the same comment ??? ----- are you aware that 2 other states already split up their electoral votes ???? ---- and are you aware that after nebraska did so, the democrats benefited ???
@RonPaul....I'm sorry but your false equivalency is bs.....nebraska is not a swing state with large urban populations, neither is vermont, neither has a lot of electoral votes....that fact alone makes your argument pure bull$hit....
Maybe the point was, Andrae, that dividing the electoral votes up might be more fair. As it stands right now, a Republican vote for President in California or Illinois is meaningless, as is a Democrat vote in Texas.
Should almost half the population in any state be totally ignored?
the point is, andrae, that the democrats gained an electoral vote ----- and now people are complaining that virginia might split their EC votes. ----- why is it you people only complain if what's happening doesn't benefit you ???
why change a system that is working soooooooooo well for the democratic party ??? just can't seem to wrap my head around THE PHILOSOPHY of those republican conservative tea party of the '' bruised bee-hines '' !!! lol
Some interesting facts..
1. If you take the sum total of all of the popular votes for the entire U.S. Congress in the 2012 election, the Democrats won by a million votes. However, they did not win back the chamber due to gerrymandering by the GOP.
2. If all states divided electoral votes by who won each congressional district, Romney would have won the total electoral vote and been elected President, despite losing the popular vote by nearly 5 million votes.
Allocating electoral votes by congressional district is NOT a solution to fix the broken electoral college system. Attempts to replace the electoral college with the popular vote have been made more than 70 times. Each time, it has passed both houses of Congress by the required two thirds majority, but it has died in the state legislatures of which 38 out of 50 (3/4) must vote to ratify. It is small states that are blocking this progress because they believe that presidential candidates will ignore them.
The only solution, and one that is gaining traction, is for a sum total of states with 270 or more electoral votes to pass the National Popular Vote Bill. Each state would award it's entire electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote. This only takes effect if enough states with a total of 270 electoral votes pass this bill.
This bill has bipartisan support and has passed in 9 states totaling 132 electoral votes or approx. 49% of the electoral votes needed to enact the bill nationwide. It is pending in numerous other states.
For details, see nationalpopularvote.com
I have heard too many times about how many votes the Dems got for Congressional candidates. Big deal. You are not exactly comparing apples to apples.
Say you are in California. Maybe that Congressional district has 450,000 voters, and votes 80% Democrat. Now look at Wyoming. Maybe the Congressional district only has 50,000 voters, and votes 80% Republican. Both parties have elected ONE single representative. But the Democrats obviously tallied far more votes. Kind of explains how the Democrats could garner many more votes and still not control the House.
Since Democrats have controlled Congress for a far greater length of time than the Republicans since 1960, was it only because they gerrymandered the districts? Both sides gerrymander. As our President is fond of saying, "Elections have consequences."
Now which side of his mouth is he speaking out of on this one? Straight forward talk to them is aiming it directly sideways usually. Use a noise monitoring procedure, put multiple sound level meters around sides of their face (or ask to repeat statement exactly a few times while moving the meter around if you have only one) to detect that speaking out of the side of their mouth habit. If speaking out of a side, expect the lies.
The United States was duped into believing a system tweak that benefited only one political side. This is the problem when a “surge” of politicism occurs within a nation suffering from weak government leadership during a time of economic disaster. The surge is caused by overzealous party members that take full advantage of the situation. Citizens are too busy working to notice and distracted by that. Many claim that our elections are corrupted. Over time, sovereignty is lost, liberty threatened, corruption rampant, and civil war breaks out. We have been to this place before in our history. You would think that steps toward the prevention of a second civil war would be taken. I noticed that the president has changed his position on gun control today, which is interesting. The nation will not move “forward” with a positive tone if the elected conclusively fail to demonstrate that first priority is to defend the constitution and its laws. The electoral college is not benefiting the vast majority of American citizens. We are losing the battle to keep our federalist republic. It is going to be a situation where we are forced to make a decision, and that decision will be either tweak it back to benefit the majority of Americans, or civil conflict. Families are not going to simply roll over and let you kick them in the ass for another 4 years of excessive loss.
Tweak it back.
The bottom line is this... If the republicans had a platform that included the will of the majority of Americans, they wouldn't need to change how we count the votes so that the minority of Americans could impose their will on the majority of Americans.
Silly. The votes will actually be counted as they have always been done. In fact, in many states, there is no "law" requiring electorates to vote in any particular way.
And "the will of the people" included voting in Republicans to a majority in the House. Get over it already.
why change a system that is working soooooooooo well for the democratic party ??? just can't seem to wrap my head around THE PHILOSOPHY of those republican conservative tea party of the '' bruised bee-hines '' !!! lol
@RonPaul.....of course you do you would, you're a conservative white guy....but in states like mississippi where some would love to have the right to murder, and disenfranchise people, based on skin color, a state where....only fifty percent of mississippi republicans believe interracial marriage should be legal(I'm in an interracial relationship and from Mississippi just google the poll)....so your states rights can go rot in the darkest recesses of hell!......of course you would love for the federal government to have no power so you and your buddies can freely, discriminate, and disenfranchise with no consequences...oh yeah and don't give me any crap about mississippi not being the racist hell hole its always been....because I have to visit the filth pit to see relatives...I stay for no more than 72 hrs at a time and I try to spend as little money as possible while there!!
How a state allocates it's electoral college votes is up to each state. Pretty simple. The federal government has nothing to do with it. As things stand today, if you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, your Presiential votes really don't even matter at all. Now does that really sound like the best system?
Another GOP plan to disenfranchise millions of Americans in order to win elections. They can't win straight up because they have been taken over by wingnut wacko's and because of that they got their butts kicked in the last presidential election. I have never been a big fan of the electoral college but this would create some real chaos and further divide our nation. This is one seriously dangerous move.
Just because Obama was re-elected does not mean that the GOP is dead. Did the Democrats die out after Bush was re-elected? Of course not!
And who is disenfranchised now under our current system? Could it be anyone voting for a Democratic candidate for President in Texas or a Republican voting for President in California? Does totally ignoring almost 1/2 of a state's population "disenfranchise" them?
And don't forget, the GOP easily won the House, again. In fact, last Congress and for this current Congress, the GOP hold more seats than at any time since 1948.
The issue is and remains one person one vote. I remember 35 years ago when Jimmy Carter won the election. There was a question then of removing the electoral college. I also remember one of my more conservative professors saying that once the EC is removed, you will see future elections where candidates won't bother with the mid west. Nobody will care about North Dakota, or Montana, or Indiana, or Wisconsin. They'll only care about New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St Louis. In short, the candidates will only care about the population centers of the country, and not give a rat's rear about the rest. However, changing the vote to congressional districts only gives more power to individual congressmen and local Merchants and bigwigs. The rest of the disctrict, along with the general population will end up going hung. The EC serves a purpose, it forces the political parties to listen to the whole country, not just the most heavily populated. Winner take all, however, still respects one person one vote.
winner takes all still respects one person one vote ---- no, it does not. ------ if you live in a lop-sided state like i do, your vote is not meaningful regardless of your party affiliation. ----- and if you don't like either party, as in my case, what are my options ??? all i can do is vote for the lesser of two evils. ---- with the EC the way it is, it is impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be elected. ----- with a straight popular vote, a non-party candidate would at least have a chance.