GOP legislators in MI, PA, & WI are pushing for proportional EC allocation

[rob in cal]

     Selective use of new EC vote apportionment systems (only to be used to hurt Democrats that is) reminds me of the electoral system used to elect the legislature in a Canadian province in the 1920s (I think it was Alberta or Manitoba, not sure).  In that case proportional representation was used in urban areas, the district system in rural ones. Imagine going to PR for urban areas in US house elections, but retaining the single member district winner take all for more republican leaning rural and suburban areas.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Would any of the governors sign this? Maybe only if it also makes the governorship based upon the number of districts you win. An awful idea, but no more awful than the rest of this.

[ilikeverin]

Would any of the governors sign this? The one thing that might stop this is that you can't gerrymander the governorship.

I hope that Snyder would not.  I may even suspect that Snyder would not.  May it be so.

[publicunofficial]

Would any of the governors sign this? Maybe only if it also makes the governorship based upon the number of districts you win. An awful idea, but no more awful than the rest of this.

I think Walker and Snyder are smart enough to realize how this will go down with voters. Corbett might just be dumb enough to sign it though.

[RogueBeaver]

They're acting stupidly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Would any of the governors sign this? The one thing that might stop this is that you can't gerrymander the governorship.

I hope that Snyder would not.  I may even suspect that Snyder would not.  May it be so.

I think Snyder may if it passes the legislature.

[Nichlemn]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

[Brittain33]

Snyder could wait until the end of the session to sign it, like he did with RTW.

[Blackacre]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

A very lucky fluke

[Sopranos Republican]

This is moronic, how about trying to reach out to more voters, instead of changing the electoral college.

[Blackacre]

This is moronic, how about trying to reach out to more voters, instead of changing the electoral college.

This. If any changes to the EC should be made, it should be the NPV system. Considering all the speculation on Romney winning the PV but not the EC, the GOP should really be in favor of NPV

[Nichlemn]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

A very lucky fluke

But given the fact that Democrats have had an electoral college advantage in the past three elections, if that persists, then it's more likely than not to make the electoral college come closer to reflecting the popular vote, if (as what seems likely) it only succeeds in one state at best.

So it might arise out of partisan self-interest, but if that self-interest has the consequence of making the system more "democratic", is it that bad?

[Mehmentum]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

A very lucky fluke

But given the fact that Democrats have had an electoral college advantage in the past three elections, if that persists, then it's more likely than not to make the electoral college come closer to reflecting the popular vote, if (as what seems likely) it only succeeds in one state at best.

So it might arise out of partisan self-interest, but if that self-interest has the consequence of making the system more "democratic", is it that bad?

Deliberately wieghting the system to favor one party is bad.  Electoral college advantages with respect to the popular vote is fleeting and can change from cycle to cycle.  In 2000, the advantage was with the Republicans, 8 years later it was with the Democrats.  Unless you plan a system of abolishing this system in Democratic states and implementing it in Republican states once the balance goes back to being in Republican's favor, this will hurt far more than it will help. 

[Blackacre]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

A very lucky fluke

But given the fact that Democrats have had an electoral college advantage in the past three elections, if that persists, then it's more likely than not to make the electoral college come closer to reflecting the popular vote, if (as what seems likely) it only succeeds in one state at best.

So it might arise out of partisan self-interest, but if that self-interest has the consequence of making the system more "democratic", is it that bad?

Deliberately wieghting the system to favor one party is bad.  Electoral college advantages with respect to the popular vote is fleeting and can change from cycle to cycle.  In 2000, the advantage was with the Republicans, 8 years later it was with the Democrats.  Unless you plan a system of abolishing this system in Democratic states and implementing it in Republican states once the balance goes back to being in Republican's favor, this will hurt far more than it will help. 

Or just use the NPV system and do away with the bs

[Nichlemn]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

A very lucky fluke

But given the fact that Democrats have had an electoral college advantage in the past three elections, if that persists, then it's more likely than not to make the electoral college come closer to reflecting the popular vote, if (as what seems likely) it only succeeds in one state at best.

So it might arise out of partisan self-interest, but if that self-interest has the consequence of making the system more "democratic", is it that bad?

Deliberately wieghting the system to favor one party is bad.  Electoral college advantages with respect to the popular vote is fleeting and can change from cycle to cycle.  In 2000, the advantage was with the Republicans, 8 years later it was with the Democrats.  Unless you plan a system of abolishing this system in Democratic states and implementing it in Republican states once the balance goes back to being in Republican's favor, this will hurt far more than it will help. 

But it's also quite plausible that some of these states will trend Republican, making split voting a disadvantage for Rs. PA for instance basically tied for the tipping point in 2012, it could well have a R lean in 2016.

[Blackacre]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

A very lucky fluke

But given the fact that Democrats have had an electoral college advantage in the past three elections, if that persists, then it's more likely than not to make the electoral college come closer to reflecting the popular vote, if (as what seems likely) it only succeeds in one state at best.

So it might arise out of partisan self-interest, but if that self-interest has the consequence of making the system more "democratic", is it that bad?

Deliberately wieghting the system to favor one party is bad.  Electoral college advantages with respect to the popular vote is fleeting and can change from cycle to cycle.  In 2000, the advantage was with the Republicans, 8 years later it was with the Democrats.  Unless you plan a system of abolishing this system in Democratic states and implementing it in Republican states once the balance goes back to being in Republican's favor, this will hurt far more than it will help. 

But it's also quite plausible that some of these states will trend Republican, making split voting a disadvantage for Rs. PA for instance basically tied for the tipping point in 2012, it could well have a R lean in 2016.

PA did that because Obama didn't bother to touch it, unlike genuine swing states like Colorado and Ohio

[badgate]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

Well, since the Dem would have won the popular vote of that state in order to win the Electoral College, but this scheme subverts the will of the state's popular vote, so..."rigging."

You know, http://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k. Skip to 4'25"

[CountryClassSF]

I think these bills should go through. Honestly.....the real Pennsylvania should have a say in choosing the President, and not just Philadelphia which basically dictates the whole state.  Same with Detroit/MI etc. I think it would be very fair.

Republicans typically do not ever like "rocking the boat," though -- and most likely won't follow through on the bills

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think these bills should go through. Honestly.....the real Pennsylvania should have a say in choosing the President, and not just Philadelphia which basically dictates the whole state.  Same with Detroit/MI etc. I think it would be very fair.

But Philadelphia is 'really' a part of Pennsylvania, Detroit 'really' a part of Michigan. You may not like them but they are.

[Fritz]

I think these bills should go through. Honestly.....the real Pennsylvania should have a say in choosing the President, and not just Philadelphia which basically dictates the whole state.  Same with Detroit/MI etc. I think it would be very fair.

Republicans typically do not ever like "rocking the boat," though -- and most likely won't follow through on the bills

What makes it unfair is the gerrymandering of the districts.  Romney would have received more electoral votes in PA than Obama with this plan, even though Obama won the state.  You want to tell me that is FAIR?

If it were proportional allocation of electors that was being proposed, I might agree with you.

[Fritz]

I guess I didn't read the thread before posting that.

Proportional allocation would be okay, if every state did it.

[Nichlemn]

Riddle me this - suppose the Democrat loses the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College if not for this scheme, which results in the Republican winning. Was the result a "rigging" or "unrigging" of the Electoral College?

Well, since the Dem would have won the popular vote of that state in order to win the Electoral College, but this scheme subverts the will of the state's popular vote, so..."rigging."

You know, http://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k. Skip to 4'25"

It doesn't "subvert it" (especially if it's proportional). What the status quo is kind of like is every state (bar ME/NE) having an extreme gerrymander. These states are undoing the gerrymanders. It's done with partisan motivation, yes, but that doesn't make it inherently unfair.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think these bills should go through. Honestly.....the real Pennsylvania should have a say in choosing the President, and not just Philadelphia which basically dictates the whole state.  Same with Detroit/MI etc. I think it would be very fair.

Racist.

[pbrower2a]

I think these bills should go through. Honestly.....the real Pennsylvania should have a say in choosing the President, and not just Philadelphia which basically dictates the whole state.  Same with Detroit/MI etc. I think it would be very fair.

Republicans typically do not ever like "rocking the boat," though -- and most likely won't follow through on the bills

Does "the real America" mean White America? Does "the real Pennsylvania" mean the white population of Pennsylvania?

Bullhist on urban America being less "American". People are where the concrete is  -- not where the cow pastures and cotton fields are. Sarah Palin made her infamous 'Real America' speech 50 miles from Columbus, Ohio in which she castigated urban America as modern equivalents of Sodom and Gomorrah in contrast to 'innocent, virtuous, rural' America.

[Lief 🗽]

I think these bills should go through. Honestly.....the real Pennsylvania should have a say in choosing the President, and not just Philadelphia which basically dictates the whole state.  Same with Detroit/MI etc. I think it would be very fair.

Racist.

^^^^