Romney would have won if Nebraska rules applied 280-252, GOP finally doing something now

[cindy25]

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/states-could-make-sweeping-changes-electoral-college

this was also on Colbert

[Brett85]

I think the Republicans should just run on a platform that actually resonates with the American people, rather than trying to change the rules in order to win.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I've always had a personal preference that each congressional district gets an electoral vote, with the overall popular vote winner of the state gets the final two.

[angelatc]

I think the Republicans should just run on a platform that actually resonates with the American people, rather than trying to change the rules in order to win.


I actually like the proposal. We were never supposed to be a democracy. This puts the power in the districts, which is preferable to the "winner-take-all" mentality. Illinois is a better example - after you get awat from Chicago, the state is fairly conservative. It's just that cesspool of liberalism drags the whole state down.

Here's a pretty good blog post on the subject: http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2013/1/21/142027/842

[itshappening]

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/states-could-make-sweeping-changes-electoral-college

this was also on Colbert

Great to hear they're looking to do this in MI, WI, PA and VA.

That will certainly make the electoral college closer for the GOP and even out the ridiculous bias that currently exists.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I think the Republicans should just run on a platform that actually resonates with the American people, rather than trying to change the rules in order to win.They sabotaged the last race on purpose. A Ron Paul victory would be a greater defeat for them than an Obama victory. the 2012 elections were a non-election. It was like voting in the USSR.

[CT4Liberty]

I like that system a lot and think its much more in line with our founding ideals that both the rural farmer and urban businessman have equal say in national votes...

It would also solve issues that people bring up with the current system vs a straight popular vote. In a straight popular vote, towns/cities/states without a lot of people would be looked over. The only places that would matter are NY, CA, TX and FL ... those people in WY, VT, ND, SD, AK, etc wouldnt matter.

In our current system, only swing states matter...why care about TX when you know its going Red or NY, CA when you know they are going Blue...

In this way, you assume TX, NY, CA will get you the extra "popular vote" sure...but if youre a Dem, you still have to make sure you get the Austin vote... if youre a Rep, you still have to make sure you get the Orange County vote... that eats into your competitions "safe states" ...

[american.swan]

I've always had a personal preference that each congressional district gets an electoral vote, with the overall popular vote winner of the state gets the final two.That's nice... Personally I'd like to stop the public from voting for president. The state legislatures should nominate native sons/daughters for the post.

[klamath]

I don't agree with this as it has too much ability to be manipulated by gerrymander. Even if it aparently would have helped Republicans in the last election it is not a good system. Once you have politicians being able to mess with the outcome by congressional district boundry drawing it will get really crooked.

[Brett85]

Great to hear they're looking to do this in MI, WI, PA and VA.

That will certainly make the electoral college closer for the GOP and even out the ridiculous bias that currently exists.

But I think those states are actually winable for the GOP. The Midwest especially has been moving more and more Republican over the last few years. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they actually won those states in 2016 and didn't get all of the electoral votes because they changed the rules.

[jbauer]

This is a crap idea. If we actually followed the constitution we'd be individual states electing someone to the postion of president. It should remain the states

[ronpaulfollower999]

I believe this is a constitutional idea, since the states are allowed to determine how the electors are chosen. The problem is the cap on the number of representatives that was established in 1912(?). Today, there is one representative for every 700,000 people. Ideally, it would be one for every 50,000. This would give us a ~6,000 member House (and cause the number of electoral votes to increase from 538 to ~6,100). A great chance for 3rd party type candidates to enter the race and break the two party monopoly.

[angelatc]

This is a crap idea. If we actually followed the constitution we'd be individual states electing someone to the postion of president. It should remain the states

What?

This is keeping it at the state level. The Constitution allows each state the right to decide how to assign the electors, so maybe I'm confused about what you're saying.

[cindy25]

I think the Republicans should just run on a platform that actually resonates with the American people, rather than trying to change the rules in order to win.

no Republican platform would carry PA or MI, and no Republican platform would carry black voters.

[Zippyjuan]

As a note, Obama did win the popular vote along with the Electoral College (50.6% to 47.8% for Romney http://www.policymic.com/articles/19197/popular-vote-2012-obama-wins-that-one-too-and-other-takeaways-from-election-2012 ). Any system which would give the victory to the loser of the popular vote is a bad one.