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:
Let them change the rule, it will bite back, these short sighted , laughable republicans!
you are correct ----- changing the way the EC works, would ultimately go against the republican party, especially if the number of house seats was increased to 535 seats, as it should be. ----- the scenario which prompted this article was based on a 435 seat house, but because the LCM is not being observed, we really should increase the number of house seats to 535. ---- if you do that, the democrats win every election.
if we absolutely wanted to retain the number of house seats to 435, then the only other way to achieve statistical accuracy would be to have congressional districts which ignore state lines. ---- but a rough guess would be that some states could be combined ---- for instance, ND and SD would get a combined one house seat. ---- WY and MT would also get a combined one house seat. ----- those seats gained using that process would then be allocated to the more populous states such as CA and NY.
Would that be anything like Harry Reid wanting to change the filibuster rule? It might come back to bite Dems when they are no longer the majority in the Senate!
mikehathaway...
No, it would be nothing like changing the filibuster rule.
Where'd that come from?
The theory behind the Electoral College has no relevance in current times. If anything, it serves as a detriment to voters nationwide. "Safe" states may never see a major candidate for president during the entire campaign. It is time we changed the presidential election to mirror all other elections where the winner is selected by popular majority or plurality vote. I doubt it will ever happen because both parties will vehemently oppose the issue ~ but frankly that is the only way "every vote will actually count." The real issue would then shift to counting every vote and that may take some time to guarantee.
i agree ----- neither party would want to allow the possibility of 3rd party encroachment on their power.
Electoral college takes state power and puts it over all citizens' individual power since when the prez does not win the majority like Bush over Gore, those who voted for Gore did not even get their 100% of their personal vote counted they only got 99.9...9% which is not pure and fair democracy at least for presdential vote. I think that is why repubs call themselves REPUBLICans which doesn't require pure, fair democracy.
I guess the logic that may be defendable for being the only country I know that does this electoral stuff is that it could help keep some states keep from getting angry and seceding say because of a mass migration recently out of their state(s) left them feeling powerless/meaningless, like a post-Civil War affect which means it was meant to keep the confederate states happy maybe if a lot of their population went north. Assume it could swing the other with with north migrations to the south.
if the electoral college was modified like it should be, you would not see the type of disparity like occurred in that election. ----- if we increase the number of house seats to 535, the electoral vote percentage will more accurately reflect the popular vote, as it should.
ronpal, increaing the number might help, but not as much as taking the boundaries out of partisan hands.
possibly ----- however, how would you go about forming a committee, to set the boundaries, which would have zero bias ??? ----------- and actually, if you increase the number of house seats to 535, it takes a lot of that bias away, you i believe my way would be more accurate than yours. ------ however, the republicans wouldn't like my idea, because they would lose just about every election.
in 1990 and 2000, i worked on a committee which helped redo the congressional districts in colorado. ---- it was very necessary because of the development of an area on the south end of metro denver called highlands ranch, where the population of that area went from near zero to 100,000.
Being in a "safe" state, not seeing the candidates has been a real benefit. All the swing states can have them 90% of the election process and with our thanks.
Is Tom Hanks ready for a sequel to Saving Private Ryan? He can save Congressman Ryan from himself and the far right.
ok, i'll bite ----- what does ryan have to do with the state of virginia thinking about allocating their electoral votes ???
hey you got a point, must have clicked on the wrong article title by accident...will slow down a bit. Thanks. Oh about this stuff, it is called "have money, get more political power to control those who don't"....my recommendation to those not wanting to be controlled, go buy land in the red districts and build dense housing and apartments there to make it a blue district moving dems in.
Wow, quite a stench in here from dozens and dozens of nasty personal attacks on Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, from the tolerant compassionate Left..
The libs know the Governor is popular and a potential GOP candidate in 2016, so the smears and attacks start early and often....
Expect more of the same from libs ....no discussion of issues, but nasty mudslinging...
It goes both ways and you know it.
When McDonnell acts like a real governor, who can be trusted, people would no longer have to say things about him. Oh, BTW, Mr. comeback, how many ways did the repubs refer to President Obama over the last four years, none of them nicely. Stop your whining.
Governor McDonnell is very popular in Virginia and has been quite succesful, and is quite respectful of Democrats.
Calling him "Govenor Vaginal Probe" shows how juvenile, hateful and lame the progressives are...but we already knew that.
Actually Gov Mc is very popular with the white rich guys but not so popular for those who get their vaginas probed or cuts in salary or homes demolished for big business.
Remember in 2014 or we can repeat the Bush years.
I think people are again failing to realize what this will do. Even though I have not read all of the remarks here, I do want to add something. It the Republicans want to change the way the electoral college is done, ok fine, but do it on honest terms. Do it in a true proportional way. If one candidate gets 45% of the vote, s/he gets 45% of the EV and the other 55%. However, don't give me the BS about the rural areas are not represented, don't give me this BS about it was the Dems idea. I don't care which party it is that wants to change the electoral system based on gerrymandered districts is not fair with the way that we vote for the President.
Rural areas are represented in the government, it is called the House of Representatives. But to have a system where potentially a candidate who wins 55% or even 60% of the vote and some how loses the election will not be right. It seems to me that this system that the Republs are proposing would only increase the amount of times where a candidate would win without having the majority of the popular vote, and the different could be potentially far greater than we have ever seen. At least with Bush, the margin was slim.
So if they want to make the system fairer I don't know why they are not arguing for true proportional representation instead of this gimmick to help them win elections. But the proposed idea does not take into account true proportional representation (because we are talking representation with regards to numbers not by size of areas) and what is even more silly, they want to get 2 electoral votes to whomever wins the most districts? Really seriously?
if you really want statistical accuracy, and for the EC vote to more accurately reflect the popular vote, then , using the rule of LCD, we would need to increase the number of house seats to 535. --------------------- frankly, i believe we should just use the popular vote.
That would work if we were a democracy, but we are not. We are a constitutional republic with a representative government. Each district should be allowed representation within the vote.
drew ----- the problem we have is..... we don't have enough congressional districts ---- we should have 535, and we only have 435.
Larger districts have more than one representative. You are still not making your point.
no, they do not. ------ there are no larger districts ---- they all have the same number of people ----- that's why states reapportion their districts every ten years after the census.
Two words to say about the popular vote winning: President Gore.
Wish the repubs would have pushed for this in 1999.
This has NOTHING to do with the popular vote... What is your point?
one reason why neither the democrats or republicans will ever opt for popular vote elections ---- neither party would want to open the door to the possibility of a 3rd party candidate.
That again is not the point RonPal, you describe a democracy, which we are not.
it doesn't matter what we are supposed to be if it is not statistically accurate.
How is it not statically accurate in a representative democracy? Each of the states are allocated representatives for districts. If one district is larger in population than other districts, why should those smaller districts lose their voice in the process? What you are proposing is denying the will of the people because they live in districts that vote differently from the majority of the people who live within a city? That is like denying votes to minorities.
we don't have the correct number of congressional districts. --------------- and i defy you to show me a state where the number of people in each district is significantly different.
Large districts have more than one representative, you are still not making a valid point. Those larger districts have a larger number of electoral votes for that district, so it does work out. The problem is all or nothing, that is not fair.
no, they do not ----- each district has one, and only one representative. ----- if you have 11 districts, like virginia, you have 11 representatives.
Still, you are saying there need to be more districts, but presently, it is all or nothing in most states. How is that fair?
Look at the Red/Blue map of the country... The Red covers a LOT of land-mass, the blue mainly cities. So the present system does not cover a majority of the districts within the country.
it isn't fair now ----- states like WY, ND, SD, and MT have one representative, but statistically, they don't have enough people to qualify for one. -------------- using the law of least common denominator, which would be wyoming, we should have about 535 congressional districts ---- we have only 435.
what democrats apparently do not understand, is that if the electoral system was properly revised for the extra 100 house seats, it would dramatically favor the democrat party. ------- i find it very intriguing that the party who would benefit the most, is the most adamant against any changes.
Why would libs be against this? Each congressional district should have the ability to send their delegates to the politician the people within that district voted for. It is giving the voters a "fair share" of the vote. If 99% of a state votes for a specific politician, but one city, with a larger population votes for another, why should the vote go to only that politician the city voted for and not the other districts within that state? If a liberal thinks THAT is fair, we are certainly in a very sorry place within this country.
Remember in 2014 or repeat the Bush years. Gerrymandering and changing voting laws can only get you so far. They are usually a stupid reactionary tactic that eventually fails.
i am well aware that the republicans do gerrymandering.... but please don't try to tell me the democrats have never done this.
you are aware, i hope, that it was a democrat who initiated the split up of the vote in nebraska, and in fact, the republicans changed their mind after initially agreeing, and unsuccessfully attempted to kill that vote.
I would like to believe Gov. McDonnell, but Republicans have lied so often that I have no credibility in his statement.
I do believe that everyone out there has lost there MINDS!!!!
AFTER 200 YEARS WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE HOW WE ELECT THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO WE CAN HAVE A TEA-PARTY PRESIDENT????????????????????????????????????????????????
I HOPE YOU LIKE YOUR AMERICA AS MUCH AS I HAVE LIKED MY AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am really in awe at how many people are ignorant of the fact that the President of the United States is not chosen by an election in November but rather by an election by the STATES in DECEMBER.
That role was to be elected by the States (remember we are called the UNITED STATES after all) to provide oversight and balance to Congress and the Supreme Court. This role was NOT supposed to have more power than Congress. In fact, CONGRESS was supposed to be the strongest branch of the government because this WAS and still is where the PEOPLE are able to directly elect their representatives to speak for them. The President's role was to be the person who spoke for the STATES (as a group) best interest not specifically taking into account the popular views...because that is what Congress was for.
However in the last, one could argue 100, but lets say...70 years the President has increased his role to one where the States have little power. The electoral colleges are chosen by party convention and they are pledged to vote by their party line (how many knew that?) I will say for all those who keep putting up that "the FOUNDERS this and the FOUNDERS that"...read the Federalist papers...because they did not want a direct democracy as they knew that it would doom us to strife and failure.
Many people want to know why so many other democracies have failed but we have not, it is because we don't have a direct democracy where factions can take control in areas and overwhelm the government. No, in fact the Founders (yep I just said it) planned this method specifically so that factions would not have that opportunity and should a faction rise in one state, all the others would have the ability to still vote their beliefs and control it from taking power.
Oh and not to mention that just because a State has its electoral votes based on Congressional districts does not mean that the popular vote winner still won't end up taking the Presidency. There is gerrymandering.
Also in a popular vote, one specific reason that the Founders did not want that was that it would end up providing the largest states and the most populous areas access to the presidency each time instead of allowing a more even distribution of votes. That is why today "swing states" end up being so important. Because their population base could potential vote either way and their electoral votes could change the whole outcome of the election. However it would still be more fair than say the East coast choosing a President for the midwest without any real input or California population choosing for Vermont. It is some what of an equalizer.
It is interesting to note however that they didn't want political parties to take over the roles the States should actually play in choosing the president and yet today the Electors are not elected by the people of the state, nor in most states are they chosen by the government. Nope they are reps elected from the political party. So maybe that should be where it changes first, not taking it away.
I have always been a fan of doing what the founding fathers intended. The President should be the winner of a vote by all the people. the electoral college was only invented because at the time, the technology for a timely election by counting single votes did not exist. But the old whites guys in wigs were pretty smart. To recap:
House of representatives, 1 representative per x amount of people. if a state has more people it gets more reps (we will speak of gerrymandering and its eviels later). To ensure that small states have rights, each state gets 2 senators. but the president was always intended to be won by the popular vote of all the people. only a party that wants power at all costs and has taken gerrymandering to a new level would stoop so low
That isn't really why the electoral college was created. Many of the Founders actually feared a mass or direct public election. They felt that direct democracies, while being the preferred method, were ultimately unattainable for a long term and stable government. This is why they chose to have a Republic like the Roman model versus the Direct Democracy model of Greece (more specifically Athens)
Also if you look at the way the whole government is set up, the Congress is designed to the be direct representatives for the people and the President is the head of the Federal government which binds all the states together. This is why the States would be allowed to choose how their electors are elected. As it is the state voting as a population for the President.
What the founders did not intend or count on is the current method in which the political parties to be the people who choose the electors and then states to then in some cases have "Faithless elector" laws. This is where the electors pledge to the party ticket over the choices of the voting public.
Given the way the 2012 election panned out, I believe Obama would have still won if all of the states had an electoral process like that of Nebraska and Maine. If two votes were held for votes to equal the state popular vote and the other votes based on congressional district votes for electors...and if those electors were chosen with the same party as their congressional reps currently in office. (And I should add that my shaky math would have to add up) Obama would have still won the majority of the electoral votes, by around 290 to 270 give or take a few errors in calculations and a few vacancies in offices etc.