Welcome to the United Congressional Districts of America

If you can't win. Change the rules until you can.

A bill in Virginia might get a vote as early as next week. It would award most electoral votes by congressional district, setting aside two votes to be given to the candidate who carries the most districts in the commonwealth. Currently, every state but Maine and Nebraska awards all its electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. (Those two states have systems that would allocate electors based on congressional district results, but so far neither has split their electoral college votes because a single candidate has swept the state.) If changes such as the Virginia bill had been in place last year, Obama would have won far fewer electoral votes. In Virginia, he would have taken four electoral votes rather than all 13.

Some In GOP Want New Electoral College Rules

Yes it says some and not all, does that mean the traditional (Conservative) way of electing a president should be overturned?

Or is this the Tea Party Taliban realizing that the electorate is not behind them?

Politicians have abused the election process in the past, but it seems rampant nowadays. The restructuring of geographical areas, or the reclassification of certain areas, has been used to help or hurt a certain candidate. Why this is not illegal I do not know. Probably because politicians are corrupt, and since they are the lawmakers, it is very difficult to take them on.

That is part of the reason why the system is screwed up, and should be changed. IMO just the illegal actions like this are enough to charge someone with a felony, or with treason against the government of the US. THAT is how serious it really is, because they are manipulating our democracy, which is the entire foundation of our political system and country.

Look at the last election, when Ron Paul was attempting to secure the Republican nomination. What Romney did should never have been allowed, and truthfully the election, if things were done fairly, should have been between Paul and Obama. Even Bush's first election it was obvious that there was blatant election fraud taking place, but we the people, who supposedly elect these people, apparently do not have the political power to do it. THAT is why we need to keep our firearms as well. Or part of the reason.

I've long been a proponent of dividing a states electoral votes by congressional district with the two for Senate seats going to the winner of statewide popular vote. I think that a winner take all allocation of a states electoral votes is pretty anti-democratic (not that I'm a big proponent of pure democracy, I like the idea of a Republic).

The winner take all allocation is why national campaigns spend so much time in money in "swing states". The only reason Obama went to California at all during the 2012 cycle wasn't to shore up support in the nations most populous state, but to raise money to spend in states with closer races. A nationwide change like the one proposed in Virginia, would force campaigns to spend money and time in states other than Florida and Ohio.

I haven't checked, but I doubt Romney would have won this past election even if the entire nation did the electoral votes like this. Romney would have picked up some votes in states that went "blue", but Obama would have no doubt picked a few electoral votes up in Georgia, Louisiana, and other "red" states as they do have some house districts that vote consistently democrat. It's likely that the electoral and popular vote percentages would be more in line with each other. In 2012 Obama Won 51% of the popular vote but 65% of the electoral vote. It looks like a mandate when you consider only the electoral vote, but much less so when you look at the popular vote.

With this system of allocation, I would think that the likelihood of a candidate winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote would be diminished but not eliminated. It's happened more than once with the current winner take all system.

Don't mistake my support for this type of systemic change for me believing that the GOP has altruistic motives in this proposal. They are doing this because they believe it will help them win future elections not because it is inherently fairer, and would fight it tooth and nail in a red state that has several Democratic held districts like Georgia and Texas. Democrats would never go for this because Democratic bastions like California and New York would lose at least a couple of EC votes because much like Georgia and Texas those states have at least a few GOP held districts, and they would have to spend at least some of the money they raise in New York and California in New York and California instead of Florida and Ohio.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Although at the moment I'd blame the Right more then the Left. Gerrymandering is a big problem from both sides of the isle.

Even though most Ohio voters backed Democrats in this year’s presidential and U.S. Senate elections, new congressional maps designed to protect GOP incumbents kept three quarters of the state’s U.S. House of Representatives seats in Republican hands. When new congressional districts were drawn last year, Republicans who control Ohio’s state legislature did their best to ensure their party’s edge in Congress for the next decade by packing the most possible Democratic voters into the fewest possible districts.

In evenly split Ohio, redistricting gives GOP 12-4 edge in congressional seats

This from the right is becoming the rule, not the exception.

As to the likes of Ron Paul. They will not have a chance until we get the money out of politics.

reply to post by jefwane


Dividing the states into electoral Congressional Districts, would make us the United Congressional Districts not the United States.

Every State should be a swing State.

Romney would have won under this district idea because of the bizarre way the are made up.

The way districts are made up pretty much guarantees a result for whomever draws them up.

reply to post by BritofTexas


I think it's a good idea. I don't think the state should award all the votes to the overall popular vote. If this is how the tea party is thinking there then I support them. Hopefully all states will follow and we can one day get a chance at third party win.

reply to post by BritofTexas


What would it matter if Romney won exactly?
Anything that breaks the votes down to a smaller scale is a good thing. It helps, even if by a tiny margin, to avoid corruption and vote flipping. I would be happier if they did this in the primaries (where things actually matter), but this helps a little.

And it doesn't make us the UCDofA.. that doesn't make sense. We are still the USA.

The winner take all system is Democracy in its purest form. Democracy after all is majority rules. The electoral system was created as a safe guard so that majority didn't dominate the minority each time running.

This proposal sounds like the way it SHOULD be. We are supposed to be a REPUBLIC and as population has grown, voices have become obscured in the crowd. This is certainly a way for the system to be rejuvenated.

Still won't help fraud at the voting booth, however.

reply to post by jefwane



GOP house seats: 234 + (States won by GOP 24 x 2) = 282 Romney EC votes
Dem house seats: 205 + (States won by DEM 26 x 2) = 257 Obama EC votes

After doing the math, that actually came as a surprise to me. That does assume that every district that voted one party for the house would have voted the same party for President. Even though that doesn't necessarily have to be the case I do think it's a fair assumption. When I have time I may look at the races by actual district to see if the above numbers do hold. I'm wondering if there are 25 House districts that voted for a GOP house member but would have went to Obama in this type of allocation. It'll have to be another time my late night insomnia has worn off.

Still, Constitutionally, how a state decides to allocate its EC vote is the State's business to decide unless there is an amendment passed to require winner take all State EC allocation. An amendment like this would never get the 38 states required for ratification. You might be able to get some western states to do this by the proposition process but Democratic bastions in the Northeast would never dilute their EC votes like this through state legislatures.We're still the United States and would still be even if this became a national trend despite your clever attempt at meme making.

I could also get behind awarding EC votes by proportion of popular vote by state, with the winner benefiting from any rounding. That will be easier to check than by district, as to how it would have affected the most recent election.

With 50 states, is it really fair that the only states that mattered last year were Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada?

reply to post by jefwane


The real difference in voting is the rural and the few large megatropolis's in the united states. Look at the map when they break the vote down to counties..... most of the country landwise is conservative, it's just a few large metro areas that make it liberal.

It is definetly 2 different worlds.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by jefwane

 

The real difference in voting is the rural and the few large megatropolis's in the united states. Look at the map when they break the vote down to counties..... most of the country landwise is conservative, it's just a few large metro areas that make it liberal.

It is definetly 2 different worlds.

That's true. In fact, Obama actually won the lowest percentage of counties ever for a presidential election winner...just 22%...and he broke his own record of 28% from 2008. He won the cities, but not much else.

Originally posted by BritofTexas
If you can't win. Change the rules until you can.

While on its face it seems it is what you stated, voting rules, specifically those pertaining to electoral votes, is left solely up to the States; so this isn't that big of a deal. Quite frankly, it is a step in the right direction of breaking "party rule" in terms of electoral college distribution. Hence why some establishment GOP is against it. It weakens their stance if the presidency swings back towards a Republican.

This move would be a win for the People of Virgina.

Or is this the Tea Party Taliban realizing that the electorate is not behind them?

What?!

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Politicians have abused the election process in the past, but it seems rampant nowadays. The restructuring of geographical areas, or the reclassification of certain areas, has been used to help or hurt a certain candidate. Why this is not illegal I do not know. Probably because politicians are corrupt, and since they are the lawmakers, it is very difficult to take them on.

Here you are speaking of "redistricting". This is a different beast and one that is quite frankly, irresponsible since both parties do it to maintain "safe seats" in their respective Houses.

Originally posted by jefwane
I've long been a proponent of dividing a states electoral votes by congressional district with the two for Senate seats going to the winner of statewide popular vote. I think that a winner take all allocation of a states electoral votes is pretty anti-democratic (not that I'm a big proponent of pure democracy, I like the idea of a Republic).

That is a good start but this proposal is even better. Each congressional district is independent of the next (eliminating the "party-line" vote from the process) and then independently splitting the two-senate seat votes based on those results; it is proposal that is much more aligned to the People of Virgina than the current model.

The winner take all allocation is why national campaigns spend so much time in money in "swing states".

Agreed. Only two states as of now allocate their votes differently and it would be in the individual states' interest to follow suit. Break away from the party system (that is basically what is in place; the party is controlling those votes, not the People of the States) and you can see not only better candidates, but more candidates.

Popular vote, make every vote count.....that is the only way and should be the only way. It puts the focus back on the people.

The electoral college is a stop gap measure to make sure the population of the US doesn't vote in the wrong person.

Originally posted by wdkirk
Popular vote, make every vote count.....that is the only way and should be the only way. It puts the focus back on the people.

The electoral college is a stop gap measure to make sure the population of the US doesn't vote in the wrong person.

The focus was lost due to the 17th Amendment and the growing problem of party politics. In most states, electorates are held accountable to their "parties". Those rules are governed by the People of those respective States. It is a sign of a lazy electorate that believes the presidency should be "popular vote".....

Another thing I would like about some other way of splitting EC votes rather than winner take all is the ability it would give third-parties to be spoilers/king makers. Since, regardless of how many people are running, to be made President someone has to win a majority of EC votes or it goes to the House to decide. Third parties could concentrate their limited resources on districts that they might possibly win hoping that the two major candidates don't get a majority and then in exchange for giving their EC votes to one of the other parties so it wouldn't go to the House, force that party to make some concessions like Cabinet appointments, policies, or something else agreeable. The party that won the House would be at an advantage in such a negotiation. Could you imagine what concessions Democrats would be forced to make with Libertarians so that an election wouldn't be decided by a GOP House?

Isn' t this similar to what the dems did when GWB won the elections?

Kind of proves the point that neither side is interested in the good of the country, they are just out for the money and power.

I wish people would see this. Too many stupid people vote straight ticket just because those running have a D or an R behind their name.

Too bad ignorance isn't painful!

Originally posted by jefwane
I've long been a proponent of dividing a states electoral votes by congressional district with the two for Senate seats going to the winner of statewide popular vote. I think that a winner take all allocation of a states electoral votes is pretty anti-democratic (not that I'm a big proponent of pure democracy, I like the idea of a Republic).

The winner take all allocation is why national campaigns spend so much time in money in "swing states". The only reason Obama went to California at all during the 2012 cycle wasn't to shore up support in the nations most populous state, but to raise money to spend in states with closer races. A nationwide change like the one proposed in Virginia, would force campaigns to spend money and time in states other than Florida and Ohio.

I haven't checked, but I doubt Romney would have won this past election even if the entire nation did the electoral votes like this. Romney would have picked up some votes in states that went "blue", but Obama would have no doubt picked a few electoral votes up in Georgia, Louisiana, and other "red" states as they do have some house districts that vote consistently democrat. It's likely that the electoral and popular vote percentages would be more in line with each other. In 2012 Obama Won 51% of the popular vote but 65% of the electoral vote. It looks like a mandate when you consider only the electoral vote, but much less so when you look at the popular vote.

With this system of allocation, I would think that the likelihood of a candidate winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote would be diminished but not eliminated. It's happened more than once with the current winner take all system.

Don't mistake my support for this type of systemic change for me believing that the GOP has altruistic motives in this proposal. They are doing this because they believe it will help them win future elections not because it is inherently fairer, and would fight it tooth and nail in a red state that has several Democratic held districts like Georgia and Texas. Democrats would never go for this because Democratic bastions like California and New York would lose at least a couple of EC votes because much like Georgia and Texas those states have at least a few GOP held districts, and they would have to spend at least some of the money they raise in New York and California in New York and California instead of Florida and Ohio.

edit on 25-1-2013 by jefwane because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2013 by jefwane because: (no reason given)

How about we get rid of the Electoral College if we want to change things to make them more democratic. Oh wait, Obama still won the popular vote. Republicans only want changes that can get them into power more easily. It has nothing to do with being more democratic.

reply to post by Mercurio


I like the idea of the electoral college. It is a bit of a safeguard against certain levels of demagougary and populism. Goerge Carlin said it best when he said something to the affect of "Imagine the average intelligence of the people you meet on the street, and then think that half the people are stupider than that".

The electoral college insures that candidates must still consider individual states. If there were no electoral college candidates would only focus on urban population centers, and rural areas would have no voice in selection of president.