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

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

Incorrect. She actually made the "Real America" speech in Guilford County, NC, which in turn voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

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

LOL. Pathetic. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

LOL. Pathetic. 

Seriously, when will this disgusting bullsh*t be called out for what it is? These conservative morons aren't even pretending they care about democracy anymore.

[traininthedistance]

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

Philadelphia is the "real Pennsylvania", and its citizens deserve just as much a voice per person as the rest of the state.  If you think otherwise, then your ideas are subversive and anti-American, and deserve nothing but ridicule.

[DrScholl]

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

There is no "real" part of any states, state boundaries determine every state and that's how it goes. Everyone in the state has a vote, regardless of where they are at, which is an equal say. With that said, the way the map is drawn, sparsely populated areas would get more of a say than the bulk of the state and that isn't fair.

[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

There is no "real" part of any states, state boundaries determine every state and that's how it goes. Everyone in the state has a vote, regardless of where they are at, which is an equal say. With that said, the way the map is drawn, sparsely populated areas would get more of a say than the bulk of the state and that isn't fair.

Contemporary Republicans are trying to rock the boat. Just look at what the Michigan State legislature has done in an effort to centralize power away from such cities as Flint and Detroit while diluting the political influence of such cities as Lansing, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo -- and of course to destroy the power and influence of labor unions. The playbook and timetable are different in the various states, but the objective is the same -- a new political order that owes much to the model of Benito Mussolini for the delineation of political power by economic interests with the assumption that employers better 'represent' their workers than can one man/one vote politics. There might not be assassinations, beatings, or castor oil yet, but even those took time to develop under Mussolini. 

They pick and choose between centralization and decentralization of power solely for the gain of power for themselves or the disenfranchisement of others. Their advocacy of allotting electoral votes based on Congressional districts that they have engineered for political advantage in Congressional elections applies only to states that they have been losing at-large. They have not advocated such for states such as AZ, GA, MO, and TX that they have been winning reliably. They seek to rewrite the rules so that the game works in their favor, getting at-large voting where such is to their advantage and district-based voting when such is to their advantage. It would be very wrong if district-based or proportional voting would be applied to Texas but not to California.

I can see a rationale for some proportional splitting of the electoral votes of the electorally-large states. Some cities that now vote "wrong" for their states, such as Atlanta, San Antonio, New Orleans, and maybe Indianapolis and St. Louis -- and ethnic minorities such as Hispanics in Arizona and blacks in Mississippi -- would become relevant in Presidential elections. The current trend in which a small number of states decide the election overstates the political importance of a few states close to the tipping point and trivializes the others. Once the primary elections are through the politicians spent huge amounts of time in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and ignore New York and Texas.         

The point. Unless someone wants to tinker with State boundaries so that giant cities and their suburbs are separated from their states, which would break a pattern of rejecting the 'adjustment' of state boundaries for which there has been no precedent since Congress approved the transfer of Berkeley and Jefferson Counties from Virginia to West Virginia in the 1860s, nobody has a way of determining a legal status for the "real Illinois" and "Greater Chicago" (which would probably include some sections of northwestern Indiana). 

   

[CountryClassSF]

I believe that the electoral college system is broken and favors big cities over the actual heart of the state, which is outside those cities. Cities have gone so far to the left, that they are literally dictating for the rest of the state how government should be formed. To me, that is unfair, and against the original intent of our founding fathers.

I believe rural Americans deserve to have their voices heard instead of being disenfranchised.  Democrats have much easier GOTV efforts in cities by just having to walk precincts, where Republicans need humongous rural turnout.

To clarify, I'd support the National Popular Vote compact over anything else. I think more Republicans will support it these days after the results of the last 2 elections. (I wonder if leftists are now reluctant to do NPV). But the current system almost makes it impossible for Republicans to win, and I just do not think one-party 3rd worldism is OK. Rural America deserves their voice

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I believe that the electoral college system is broken and favors big cities over the actual heart of the state, which is outside those cities. Cities have gone so far to the left, that they are literally dictating for the rest of the state how government should be formed. To me, that is unfair, and against the original intent of our founding fathers.

I believe rural Americans deserve to have their voices heard instead of being disenfranchised.  Democrats have much easier GOTV efforts in cities by just having to walk precincts, where Republicans need humongous rural turnout.

To clarify, I'd support the National Popular Vote compact over anything else. I think more Republicans will support it these days after the results of the last 2 elections. (I wonder if leftists are now reluctant to do NPV). But the current system almost makes it impossible for Republicans to win, and I just do not think one-party 3rd worldism is OK. Rural America deserves their voice

Dawg, changing the rules isn't really going to help us, largely because of the fact that we have also lost the popular vote in the last two elections, not just the electoral vote. Following along those lines, the idea of Republicans winning a close election or two thanks to what three states are doing isn't going to actually make the party more popular because that won't really change the way the entire country votes, thinks, views, etc.

[CountryClassSF]

Dawg, changing the rules isn't really going to help us, largely because of the fact that we have also lost the popular vote in the last two elections, not just the electoral vote. Following along those lines, the idea of Republicans winning a close election or two thanks to what three states are doing isn't going to actually make the party more popular because that won't really change the way the entire country votes, thinks, views, etc.

I am fine with the National Popular Vote idea (and I'm not so sure why so many conservatives aren't) - mainly because of the way the EV is constructed to favor Democrats.

It'd be beneficial for Republicans because then they can finally campaign in California and Illinois without the goal of getting 51%+.  Republicans lack of a 50 state strategy destroyed us down-ballot.

Maine and Nebraska did the congressional allocation. Each state has a right to allocate based on anything they want.  Sometimes you have to do what you can to win. the Democrats play dirty every time by allowing people to vote en masse without proving who they are.

And what happened to Election DAY vs Election MONTH? The Democrats change the rules ALL the time, the minute Republicans try any reform it's immediately shot down or smeared as trying to rig the election. Maybe the Democrats should work on why they do so terribly outside metropolitan areas instead of trying to get them to dictate for an entire state how they should vote.

Sorry, you have to fight to win elections, and Republicans have refused in the last two cycles to do so out of fear of "What will the people think?"

[opebo]

I believe that the electoral college system is broken and favors big cities over the actual heart of the state, which is outside those cities. Cities have gone so far to the left, that they are literally dictating for the rest of the state how government should be formed. To me, that is unfair, and against the original intent of our founding fathers.

The original intent of those horribles was that the blacks who now inhabit the cities should remain slaves.  So, lets just try to put those shameful men behind us.

What do you mean by 'heart of the state'?  White christians?

[Likely Voter]

Oh I see. One man one vote*

*unless you live in a city, then 1/2 a vote

[opebo]

Maybe the Democrats should work on why they do so terribly outside metropolitan areas

We know why, CC - those areas are full of racist ignorants.

[CountryClassSF]

Oh I see. One man one vote*

*unless you live in a city, then 1/2 a vote

And not a word about all the illegal aliens that vote because they don't have to show ID .... I don't think Democrats are really interested in "free and fair elections"

Typical lib attitude against our foundation. Sad.

[opebo]

Typical lib attitude against our foundation. Sad.

What 'foundation'?  Slavery and killing Indians?  Your country is built on blood.  Its foundation is crime and deception.

[CountryClassSF]

Typical lib attitude against our foundation. Sad.

What 'foundation'?  Slavery and killing Indians?  Your country is built on blood.  Its foundation is crime and deception.

You're a disgrace to the country. Move to Venezuela.  Absolutely disgraceful

[bedstuy]

I believe that the electoral college system is broken and favors big cities over the actual heart of the state, which is outside those cities. Cities have gone so far to the left, that they are literally dictating for the rest of the state how government should be formed. To me, that is unfair, and against the original intent of our founding fathers.

I believe rural Americans deserve to have their voices heard instead of being disenfranchised.  Democrats have much easier GOTV efforts in cities by just having to walk precincts, where Republicans need humongous rural turnout.

To clarify, I'd support the National Popular Vote compact over anything else. I think more Republicans will support it these days after the results of the last 2 elections. (I wonder if leftists are now reluctant to do NPV). But the current system almost makes it impossible for Republicans to win, and I just do not think one-party 3rd worldism is OK. Rural America deserves their voice

I don't know if you're being serious. 

But, what kind of principle are you arguing?  It's not fair that cities have greater density?  It's not fair that a majority of voters supported President Obama?  It's not fair that more people live in cities than rural areas?  What is a fair way to have a Presidential election? 

I also think most people would agree that a national popular vote would favor the Democrats. 

[BluegrassBlueVote]

I believe that the electoral college system is broken and favors big cities over the actual heart of the state, which is outside those cities. Cities have gone so far to the left, that they are literally dictating for the rest of the state how government should be formed. To me, that is unfair, and against the original intent of our founding fathers.

I believe rural Americans deserve to have their voices heard instead of being disenfranchised.  Democrats have much easier GOTV efforts in cities by just having to walk precincts, where Republicans need humongous rural turnout.

To clarify, I'd support the National Popular Vote compact over anything else. I think more Republicans will support it these days after the results of the last 2 elections. (I wonder if leftists are now reluctant to do NPV). But the current system almost makes it impossible for Republicans to win, and I just do not think one-party 3rd worldism is OK. Rural America deserves their voice

You really need to give up on following politics and re-evaluate a lot of things in your life. Your racism is palpable and, at the very least, should be better hidden.

Regardless of your bigoted drivel, Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. I don't see where you're going with this "national vote would be more fair!" idea.

[Blackacre]

I believe that the electoral college system is broken and favors big cities over the actual heart of the state, which is outside those cities. Cities have gone so far to the left, that they are literally dictating for the rest of the state how government should be formed. To me, that is unfair, and against the original intent of our founding fathers.

I believe rural Americans deserve to have their voices heard instead of being disenfranchised.  Democrats have much easier GOTV efforts in cities by just having to walk precincts, where Republicans need humongous rural turnout.

To clarify, I'd support the National Popular Vote compact over anything else. I think more Republicans will support it these days after the results of the last 2 elections. (I wonder if leftists are now reluctant to do NPV). But the current system almost makes it impossible for Republicans to win, and I just do not think one-party 3rd worldism is OK. Rural America deserves their voice

I don't know if you're being serious. 

But, what kind of principle are you arguing?  It's not fair that cities have greater density?  It's not fair that a majority of voters supported President Obama?  It's not fair that more people live in cities than rural areas?  What is a fair way to have a Presidential election? 

I also think most people would agree that a national popular vote would favor the Democrats. 

I don't care who NPV would favor. The person who wins the PV should win the election, period.

[CountryClassSF]

I think NPV is more favorable to Republicans since getting 51%+ in the non Texas big states is unlikely to
happen barring a demo shift. Working for 40-45% in IL,CA,NY
and fighting for every last vote in a close race is more appealing to me

[opebo]

Typical lib attitude against our foundation. Sad.

What 'foundation'?  Slavery and killing Indians?  Your country is built on blood.  Its foundation is crime and deception.

You're a disgrace to the country. Move to Venezuela.  Absolutely disgraceful

You're a disgrace - haven't apparently ever read a history book.  You really should, you'd probably get quite a thrill from all the killing your progenitors did.  Lots of whipping, torture, and rape as well.  Just a lovely bunch.

[bedstuy]

I think NPV is more favorable to Republicans since getting 51%+ in the non Texas big states is unlikely to
happen barring a demo shift. Working for 40-45% in IL,CA,NY
and fighting for every last vote in a close race is more appealing to me

Under the electoral college, the GOP doesn't need to win California, New York or Illinois to win the Presidency.  It's just about getting 270.  And, there's the exact parallel situation for Democrats in Texas.

I think the NPV hurts Republicans because their constituencies already vote at a higher rate.  Thus, the Democrats will get more of a boost from the increased engagement in the Presidential race by non-swing state voters.  But, of course, I think it's wrong to decide on what election system you want based on what's more favorable to your party.

[Blackacre]

I think NPV is more favorable to Republicans since getting 51%+ in the non Texas big states is unlikely to
happen barring a demo shift. Working for 40-45% in IL,CA,NY
and fighting for every last vote in a close race is more appealing to me

Under the electoral college, the GOP doesn't need to win California, New York or Illinois to win the Presidency.  It's just about getting 270.  And, there's the exact parallel situation for Democrats in Texas.

I think the NPV hurts Republicans because their constituencies already vote at a higher rate.  Thus, the Democrats will get more of a boost from the increased engagement in the Presidential race by non-swing state voters.  But, of course, I think it's wrong to decide on what election system you want based on what's more favorable to your party.

NPV is more favorable to America as a whole.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are all swing states, but they always seem to go for the Democrats at the last minute.   It's kind of like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.  The GOP always thinks it has a chance to carry those states, and the polls suggest it, and then on Election Night they always seem to lose them.  Personally, I don't like this idea, since those are such big states that the election maps and results would be a mess.  It may work well in smaller states, but once you get more population, it's kind of difficult to do something like this.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

They are being sore losers because their party is dying off and its not "Cool" to be GOP these days without being calling "Racist"

[pbrower2a]

Dawg, changing the rules isn't really going to help us, largely because of the fact that we have also lost the popular vote in the last two elections, not just the electoral vote. Following along those lines, the idea of Republicans winning a close election or two thanks to what three states are doing isn't going to actually make the party more popular because that won't really change the way the entire country votes, thinks, views, etc.

I am fine with the National Popular Vote idea (and I'm not so sure why so many conservatives aren't) - mainly because of the way the EV is constructed to favor Democrats.

It'd be beneficial for Republicans because then they can finally campaign in California and Illinois without the goal of getting 51%+.  Republicans lack of a 50 state strategy destroyed us down-ballot.

I'd also like to see Democrats seek out votes among groups that get $crewed in Presidential politics because they now vote 'wrong' -- blacks in the South and Hispanics in Texas.  If there had been a national popular vote in 2000 and later, Democratic nominees would have chased such votes. Al Gore would have been campaigning in places like San Antonio and El Paso instead of hoping for the best in Florida. Don't be fooled on Barack Obama getting a much bigger share of the electoral vote  than the popular vote in either 2008 or 2012. There would have been active branches of Obama for America in Texas, and Barack Obama would have sought a bigger share of the popular vote in Texas and tried to run up the numbers in California and New York.

Barack Obama won fair and square. Republicans need to recognize that he was an above-average Presidential candidate, and that the only way in which he would have lost would have been to have had the electoral vote split in his disfavor in some states that he won (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida) by Congressional districts or on a proportional allotment while the states that he lost went on a winner-take-all basis. That said, I could probably win a 'chess' match against a grandmaster if I could take back a move that had a consequence that I disliked and if I could take all the time that I wanted to make a move. Of course what would be played would not be chess even if the game has some resemblance to the game. Chess has its rules, and championship play has its protocols. When the protocols are violated the game becomes a travesty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is a reasonable assumption that those who register voters can check an application against the reality of an address. If a prospective voter has an address at what proves to be a non-residential place (such as a public school), then there at least needs to be some clarification. As a rule, having voted in a recent election is prima facie evidence of qualifying for the next one. Supposedly if someone registers to vote in Kalamazoo  successfully and then registers to vote in Ann Arbor while a student at the University of Michigan, the application in Ann Arbor authorizes Kalamazoo officials to strike the student from the voting register in Kalamazoo.

Most people do not have the absolute proof of who they are.

Impersonation of another voter is rare. It is more likely that people with the responsibility to administer the vote 'lose' applications by people that they don't want voting.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe that is because partisan hacks administering the election did questionable things -- like having an inadequate supply of polling devices in places likely to 'vote wrong'. So it was in Florida, Georgia, and Ohio. Absentee ballots are common in many places, and one state (Oregon) has been voting by mail for a long time.  If people have to wait hours to vote because a county official wants such to be so in "Precinct 231" but have smooth sailing in "Precinct 238" because Precinct 231 has a large black population and Precinct 238 is lily-white, there might be some evidence of discriminatory behavior.

Nobody wants another acrimonious travesty to follow a Presidential election in which a partisan hack makes a ruling in one State that effectively decides the election. Maybe few would ever bring up the 2000 election had Dubya been something other than the calamity that he was. We have had weak Presidents elected in close elections (notably Jimmy Carter) but at least Carter was scrupulously honest. Republicans had better accept that Dubya was not only incompetent but intellectually dishonest, reliant upon shady figures like Karl Rove to make some 'big decisions'.

...Republican state legislators have gerrymandered Congressional districts so that although they concede some urban districts sure to vote 60% or more Democratic even in a good year for Republicans the rest of the state is divided upon boundaries split the remainder of the states so that any Democratic concentration in small cities is diluted. Such has been done in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Such is what happens in some Islamic countries in which an Islamist Party wins the first somewhat-free election: the winners freeze the status quo indefinitely. That's how the corrupt, brutal, repressive, and unrepresentative regime in Iran holds power.   

The nationwide vote for the House of Representatives in 2012 was with the Democrats. Republicans hold a decisive majority of House seats because of Republican hacks deciding to freeze a result that they like by means that Americans are likely to see increasingly inconsistent with what they believe. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Return, please, to my "chess" analogy. Neither Karpov nor Kasparov would ever play a game of "chess" in which I had a reasonable chance of winning -- which means that I would get unlimited time (tournament chess is timed) and could take back moves after they proved disastrous to me -- but the legitimate master would have a distinct disadvantage by having to conform with the rules of tournament play.

Responsible government depends upon politicians contemplating what voters think. Sure, it is possible to so distort the rules so that one can expect a predictable result, as in Iran today or in Mississippi 50 years ago. But such is no more democracy than a game played with rules that favor one side is the legitimate game.