By Ralph Schwartz
Yes, it looks that way. (If I’m going to write a question as a headline, I figured I owed you an answer.)
Slate columnist Dave Weigel has been thinking about the GOP plan to overhaul how Electoral College votes are determined for a little while now. Just today he tweeted:
“Really strange that there’s more coverage of hypothetical 2016 matchups than coverage of actual Electoral College-rigging plans”
Seven days ago, Weigel posted a column on the topic on Slate.com. He pointed out something I find interesting; if the Electoral College reform favored by the GOP had been in place for Obama-Romney, Romney would have won the College, 276-262. (As it is, Obama won 332-206.)
So what is this game-changing idea for reforming the Electoral College? Rather than having a candidate win all of a state’s electoral votes if he/she wins a majority of popular votes, the candidate will get one Electoral College vote for each congressional district he/she wins. The other two state Electoral College votes would go to the popular winner. This scheme is already in place in Nebraska and Maine.
What are the consequences? In Florida, Obama narrowly won all of that state’s 29 electoral votes. Broken out by congressional district, Romney won 18 of 27. So the Electoral College split for Florida would have been 18 for Romney, 11 for Obama (nine for the congressional districts he won, plus two for winning the state as a whole).
Beyond the numbers, what are the political consequences? It depends on whom you ask, of course.
American Thinker presents the idea as more fair — to voters and to Republican candidates who get shortchanged under the the existing winner-take-all Electoral College system:
The electoral effect would be to greatly reduce the number of people whose votes don’t count in the electoral college. … The political effect, of course, would be to very nearly guarantee that an incoming president and the House majority represent the same party.
The Democrats will argue that this reduces the value of an individual presidential vote in their most densely populated enclaves, while increasing the value of a presidential vote cast by a bitter clinger — and they’ll be politically right, because that is exactly what would happen, but morally wrong because this is actually good, not bad, for democracy.
The reason is because a fair election requires the electorate to listen to both sides and make an informed choice between them.
A University of Virginia Center for Politics column takes the opposite stance:
The congressional district plan appears reasonable at first glance. After all, why give all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins statewide no matter how narrow that candidate’s margin? Awarding electoral votes by congressional district would seem to provide a fairer and more balanced alternative to the winner-take-all system. But there is a serious problem with this approach. Despite a superficial appearance of fairness, the congressional district plan would be profoundly undemocratic — skewing the results in favor of the party drawing the congressional district lines in a state and greatly increasing the chances of an Electoral College misfire (a victory by the candidate losing the national popular vote).
This point harkens back to a blog I posted several days ago about super PACs spending money at the state level to redraw congressional boundaries.
Given shifting demographics that favor Democrats, they have a fairly easy shot under the current system to get 285 electoral votes (it takes 270 to win). With the alternative plan, the Republicans would have an equally easy path to the presidency.
How to choose? Is there a third way? Should we just let the popular vote decide our president?
One state already apportions their delegates this way (Maine, maybe??). It is thus legal and could be done in all 50 states.
There is zip, zero, NO CHANCE that we will ever have the president selected by popular vote. This would require a change to the constitution, requiring a super-majority of (small) states to GIVE UP their power as states, to make this change. Smaller states (Vermont, Wyoming, etc) get the same number of senators as Texas and California, and thus those 2 extra delegates. This gives small states a “small” extra voice at the table. No way that they would give that up. So, a “popular vote” is a non starter. Sorry, folks.
However, going “winner take all” in each congressional district does at least two good things: It increases the value of the votes for citizens in those districts (if their districts are in play). For example, Whatcom County Congressional district 1 might be in play every 4 years under this system, causing candidates to come here and address our concerns. But as things are now (Washington never being a swing state), we don’t get the attention. Period. And the best thing, this removes the election from being decided by a limited number of Swing States. Every state, we might say, becomes “in play” and needs to be spoken too.
Will this happen? Probably not, but has a better chance than the popular vote, and is closer to the popular vote concept, while still doing something that the US constitution thought was important: affirming states individuality and power.
Remember, we are the UNITED states. Not the UNIFORM states.
NOTE: Maine and Nebraska apportion their delegates among congressional lines, with the popular vote winner also taking the 2 extra delegates.
As mentioned in the article (Maine, NEbraska). I read through a bit too quickly, since I knew the proposal (tried to edit my post, but for some reason unable to).
Gerrymandered presidential elections. Just shoot me and put me out of my misery.
Basically, this means that rural votes would count more (actually, a lot more) than urban votes. It’s just a more clever way to achieve what Jim Crow laws were designed for. I’d wonder if a Republican president who lost the popular vote my millions, yet won the Electoral College, could ever be perceived as legitimate. But the Republican Party doesn’t even bother to put on appearances any longer. They’re rushing headlong toward a statistical minority and will clearly do anything — anything — in an attempt to retain some semblance of power.
I suppose it was too much to hope that sure-fire way to win elections
would be to advocate useful policies,
promote responsible governance for all citizens,
eliminate corruption and cronyism
and build the nation through the implementation of excellent ideas.
Why does the GOP always need to stink?
Hillary Clinton 2016-2024
The sure fire way for them to win is for the dumbing down of America to continue unabated, lobotomies to be covered under Obamacare and someone to just pull the handle and flush all common sense right out of the USA.