Republican Hack Jon Husted wants to allocate Ohio EV by congressional district

[JFK-Democrat]

This guy is unbelievable. I have a message for you Husted, you are going down in 2014!!!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/09/no_no_no_don_t_split_electoral_votes_by_congressional_district.html

[afleitch]

Of course he does, because the GOP gerrymandered them.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Voters generally take a dim view of shenanigans like this, so hopefully it won't pass.

[CountryRoads]

Let's not...and say we did. Ok, Jon?

[politicallefty]

Of course he does, because the GOP gerrymandered them.

Yep, just like the short-lived attempt in Pennsylvania. At least Ohio would allow for a referendum on an any such proposal. Just once I'd like to see a Republican propose this in a Romney state, but I won't hold my breath. This kind of a idea should be DOA so long as gerrymandering exists.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Good God, I don't even think Blackwell was this bad.  It's like all of the people formerly believed to be rising stars in the Ohio Republican Party decided to see who could do the most to ruin their chances of ever winning another statewide election.  First there were Jim Jordan's antics during the debt-ceilling chaos, then Mandel's disastrous Senate campaign (don't let the margin fool you, even the Dispatch endorsed Brown), and now Husted seems to have dedicated the remainder of his political career to finding ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert the democratic process in Ohio.  It's like they were the empire in The Empire Strikes Back (dangerous, powerful, etc) and now they are the empire in The Return of the Jedi (helpless against a bunch of teddybears with slingshots).

[Devils30]

It's actually super stupid for the GOP. Ohio is slightly more R than the national vote so in a close election like 2000 it gives the Dems 4 extra ev and probably hurts the GOP the majority of the time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes and no.  If you think Ohio will continue to trend Democratic it would definitely make sense, but I don't think anyone can know now how the state will trend four years from now, let alone long term.  Also, given how thoroughly the State is gerrymandered right now it would also serve as insurance for the GOP.

[tmthforu94]

Doing this would make things even more hectic, as instead of focusing on states, there would be "Swing Districts". I think both sides would end up hating it in time.

I am curious to see how much closer this election would be had it been like this - I remember McCain broke 200 in 2008 with it.

[Mehmentum]

This actually wouldn't help Republicans that much, if at all.  Ohio is slightly more republican than the nation, so this would just give Democrats more of an electoral college advantage by giving them a few free EVs. 

[rob in cal]

    I can see the GOP trying to do this throughout the Big 10 states, from Iowa all the way to Pennsylvania.  These are states where they win lots of congressional seats year in year out but usually lose the presidential vote, yet they often elect governors, sometimes win the state legislatures etc, so they sometimes have the power to put it in place, plus the motivation.  If they were smart they'd do it in Indiana also, just to prove its a regional "reform" with "no partisan agenda".  The referendums against it in Michigan and Ohio would be epic battles, drawing in huge amounts of money and speakers from around the country.

[Badger]

As a Republican, I think this is a horrible idea in ANY state.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I would love if the 2016 election came down to Ohio, the Republican won it, but the Democrat won just enough districts to break 270.

[muon2]

I'd like see it done with a compromise referendum question. Combine EV-based electors with redistricting reform. That would give something to each side in OH.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

As a Republican, I think this is a horrible idea in ANY state.

Wait what?  Since when were you a Republican?

[Badger]

As a Republican, I think this is a horrible idea in ANY state.

Wait what?  Since when were you a Republican?

See the avatar.

[Badger]

I'd like see it done with a compromise referendum question. Combine EV-based electors with redistricting reform. That would give something to each side in OH.

You're as respectable a guy as they come, man, but a reform that maximizes proportional representation of the voters' will in exchange for another "reform" that dilutes it is NOT a good idea, regardless of the parties each getting one strike in their favor.

CD-based electoral votes is an even bigger obamination than the EC itself, and that's saying a lot. Hopefully this idea remains stillborn.

[Oakvale]

As a Republican, I think this is a horrible idea in ANY state.

Wait what?  Since when were you a Republican?

See the avatar.

Yeah, that surprised me too - are you a recent convert or were you a Republican for years and only switched to a D avatar because of Bush?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Terrible idea, but it probably won't pass.

Speaking of which, are Corbett and the Republicans still trying to get this crazy idea to pass in PA?

[Sound + Vision]

Am I the only one who actually prefers allocating elector votes by Congressional district to the current system (granted, with strict, strict anti-gerrymandering laws)? Ideally, we would abolish the electoral college altogether and replace it with a national popular vote system, but if we absolutely must have the electoral college, this seems like the most practical way to ensure that everyone's vote counts.

[Badger]

Am I the only one who actually prefers allocating elector votes by Congressional district to the current system (granted, with strict, strict anti-gerrymandering laws)? Ideally, we would abolish the electoral college altogether and replace it with a national popular vote system, but if we absolutely must have the electoral college, this seems like the most practical way to ensure that everyone's vote counts.

If CD based EV is applied, even with strict anti-gerrymandering laws (and don't expect the two to cross), then the result would still be a blatant skew away from proportional result of the voter's will. There are simply too many urban districts that go overwhelmingly Democratic outnumbered by mere Republican-leaning suburban and rural districts. In few states is this more apparant than Ohio.

If one believes ensuring Republicans win any even close-ish election rather than the candidate who actually got more votes, than CD based EV "reform" is for you. I'm not that type of Republican.

[muon2]

I'd like see it done with a compromise referendum question. Combine EV-based electors with redistricting reform. That would give something to each side in OH.

You're as respectable a guy as they come, man, but a reform that maximizes proportional representation of the voters' will in exchange for another "reform" that dilutes it is NOT a good idea, regardless of the parties each getting one strike in their favor.

CD-based electoral votes is an even bigger obamination than the EC itself, and that's saying a lot. Hopefully this idea remains stillborn.

Barring a constitutional amendment there will be a state-based system to select electors to the EC. They were not always decided on a winner-takes-all basis. I think it's worthwhile to remember the original intent that electors reflect the desire of a state's voters, and that includes some thinking about a division of electors within a state.

The two major suggestions to a winner-takes-all system is a pure proportional system or a CD-based system. Over and over I've read posts on this forum objecting to the CD-based EV because of the impact of gerrymandering. I agree that is its greatest weakness.

Using a system of neutrally drawn districts to select electors for the president is not without parallels elsewhere in the world. Imagine that Canada held two national elections at the same time. One would elect the parliament and the other would elect a short-lived body to handle the task of electing electing the prime minister. In Canada those two functions reside in the same body, and there is no problem with the fairness of the districts, because they are drawn in a neutral manner. In the US those functions are intentionally separate, but there's no reason that the fairness of selecting a leader could not be addressed by neutral redistricting as happens in much of the world.

[Sound + Vision]

Am I the only one who actually prefers allocating elector votes by Congressional district to the current system (granted, with strict, strict anti-gerrymandering laws)? Ideally, we would abolish the electoral college altogether and replace it with a national popular vote system, but if we absolutely must have the electoral college, this seems like the most practical way to ensure that everyone's vote counts.

If CD based EV is applied, even with strict anti-gerrymandering laws (and don't expect the two to cross), then the result would still be a blatant skew away from proportional result of the voter's will. There are simply too many urban districts that go overwhelmingly Democratic outnumbered by mere Republican-leaning suburban and rural districts. In few states is this more apparant than Ohio.

If one believes ensuring Republicans win any even close-ish election rather than the candidate who actually got more votes, than CD based EV "reform" is for you. I'm not that type of Republican.

I don't think that the change would be as drastic as you suggest. Let's use your Ohio example: in 2008, Barrack Obama won 8 of Ohio's congressional districts to John McCain's 9. Giving Obama the remaining 2 electoral votes for winning a majority of the vote in the state, the final tally would have been 10 electoral votes for Barrack Obama and 9 for John McCain. No, not totally representative of how the state voted overall, but is this not more fair than giving Obama 100% of the electoral votes of a state that he only received 51% of the vote in?

[J. J.]

I don't think it is a bad idea, if most or all of the states do it.  Obama might have gotten 8-10 EV in OH, but he probably would have made it up in TX. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd like see it done with a compromise referendum question. Combine EV-based electors with redistricting reform. That would give something to each side in OH.

Distributing electors by CD is far worse than the gerrymandering that currently exists in Ohio and that's saying something!