1. So, this basically says that the Repbulicans think the Republican nominee is definitely not going to win a majority/plurality of the 2012 presidential vote. 2000 and 2004 were pretty close votes. The risk/reward element is interesting here. I’d love to see it backfire in 2012. I.e. the Reps win statewide, but have to give the Dems half the EC votes due to their new law.

   This electoral college gerrymandering by Pennsylvania is intriguing. Can’t say that I am totally against it since I support the NPV plan. Let the states decide on their own how they want to allocate EC votes. Hopefully NPV will negate Pennsyvlania’s chicanery.

   I wonder what other states fall into this position of statewide being run entirely by R or D leges/governorship, but statewide the popular presidential vote goes for the other party’s candidate.

2. In 2008, one of Nebraska’s three electoral votes went to President Obama even with an almost entirely Republican controlled state government. In 2008 here in Maine, we have a Republican governor, house and state senate but President Obama will almost surely win both districts here.

3. States, besides Pennsylvania, in which Obama won in 2008 but where Republicans have both houses of the legislature and the Governor are Florida, Indiana, Maine (which already lets each district choose its own elector), Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

4. Not having a winner-take-all system at the state level seems to be more accurate. For instance, the D’s always win California’s 52 votes. That is not representative of how each House district voted. The same with Florida in 2000; giving one candidate all 26 electoral votes was not indicative of the will of the voters in Florida.

5. I propose that voters can vote for 1,2 or 3 candidates. Voters would be given a ballot with the following options:

   In a 3-way race:

   A
   B
   C
   AB
   AC
   BC
   ABC

   The “set” with the most votes gets that state’s Electors. So, if set ABC won a state, the Electors would be split 3-ways between the 3.

6. This type of electoral college method was proposed long ago by Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota. It has advantages and disadvantages. One problem with the NPV plan is that in a close national election late returns from Cook County, Illinois or Philadelphia, Penn. could be held back to tip the national election. In the Mundt plan voter fraud can be limited to a few congressional Districts. On the other hand, it hardly seems fair for the Republicans to cherry pick a state like Penn., but not do the same in, say, Texas.

7. 1 –

   The biggest problem I see with states adopting this method of selecting electors (and of course, they have the constitutional right to allocate their electors in whatever manner they choose) is this: the more granular the allocation of electors becomes, the more rife with fraud our presidential elections will become. Modern polling techniques are sufficiently accurate to determine which of Florida’s, or New York’s CD’s are “in play” and which are done deals. You can bet that if one party controls the state and local election apparatus in those CD’s, they will be tempted to do everything in their power to assure that the vote goes their way, including shifting voting machines from one polling place to another, selectively caging new voter registrations, and so on.

   Think “Ohio 2004” on a smaller scale.

   Of course I too disagree with this method of determining electors because it takes us further from, not closer to, electing the president who secures a plurality of the national popular vote. But that objection is secondary to my objection to plans which foster electoral fraud, as this one certainly would.

   6 – It may not seem fair for either party to “cherry pick” as you put it, but the Constitution makes them perfectly free to do so. Until we adopt the NPV, and as adoption becomes more likely, we’ll hear more about alternatives such as this. And as I state above, this method would “limit” fraud only to the CD’s where it’s worth the effort of committing the fraud in the first place – hardly preventive. No one will perpetrate electoral fraud, unless they’re really stupid, in a deep red or blue CD. But in a toss-up CD in a close election?…well, think Ohio 2004.

   BTW – please explain, if you would, how Cook Country votes could/would be “held back” to tip a national election under the NPV plan. Is Illinois, or any other state for that matter, prepared not to certify their state’s popular vote totals in time for their electoral votes to be counted? How would that be explained by the state’s governor to the populace of his or her state? Thanks.

8. If Florida had in place a law in 2000 to provide that electors were chosen by Congressional district, the butterfly ballot issues would have only effected a couple of districts. We would not have had a 36 day period during which we did not know who would be President. That is the only problem I see with adopting the Congressional district method of choosing electors.

9. 8 –

   See above. If you think that the major parties and their representatives in the state executive offices will not play a part in “gaming” the CD’s that are toss-ups, you are quite naive. Presidential elections will be often be won by the happenstance of which states have the most toss-up CD’s and which parties control the states with the majority of those CD’s.

   Also, the president doesn’t take office until January. What the hell was the problem with the “waiting period”
   in 2000, anyway? Are we now ordering our presidents at the McDonald’s takeout window?

10. And where or where is Jim the Technicolor Republican Tool?

11. 1860 Deja Vu all over again ??? Stay tuned.

    1/2 votes (or less – a plurality) x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 (or less) CONTROL.

    Save Democracy in the U.S.A.
    —
    Const Amdt
    Uniform definition of Elector
    P.R. and App.V
    Equal ballot access nominating petitions.
    (repeal all of the special and negative stuff).

    i.e. one more MAJOR election amdt for the nearly dead U.S.A. Const.

12. @ 9 – I was not complaining about the waiting period when we did not know who would be President – I celebrated it. My only complaint about choosing electors from Congressional Districts is that it would prevent such a situation in the future.

    I am not worried about parties “gaming” congressional districts. If a party gerrymanders the districts so that the winning party with 51% gets 7 out of 10 districts, that is still more representative than the current system, where the winning party with 51% (or less in a multi-party race) gets ALL the electoral votes of a state.

13. # 3 Gee – how many Elephant gerrymander districts can be created in such Elephant control States ???

    — and the opposite likewise in Donkey control States ???

    Which State will be the last to create its gerrymander districts ???

    i.e. will the next Prez be de facto elected with UNDER 25 percent of the popular votes ???

    1860 disaster x 1,000 or more ???

14. 12 –

    I can’t imagine anything being more important to a democracy than clean elections.

15. Better yet – print the names of the individual presidential electors on the ballots (no un-named slates), and eliminate the actual presidential candidate names (party nominees & independents) along with all political affiliations. Lets have the presidential electors themselves go out and campaign for votes.

    With district elections, each party/independent would have three of their presidential electors (1 dist + 2 at large) on each ballot. So Rep,Dem,Lib,Grn,Con,Ind = 6 x 3 = eighteen candidates on the presidential ballots, on average. Our Founders’ plan was to have us voting for KNOWN presidential electors – people of public renown and trust to make this important decision.

16. #15 Abolish the STONE AGE timebomb Electoral College.

    How many States manage to survive by having the DIRECT election of the State Guvs by the sovereign Electors-Voters in such States ???

    Since when is a Prez a New Age god, emperor, tyrant, monarch, etc. ??? — regardless of ALL of the brain dead media hype since 1932 regarding CIC, *Presidency*, etc. etc.

    Uniform definition of Elector
    P.R. and App.V.

17. I’ve proposed – though no one has done anything with it – that Electors be voted on individually – the top x Electors become the elected slate. Then a voter could decide to “split” his Presidential vote between 1, 2, 3 (or possibly more) Presidential candidates (assuming the voter lives in a State with multiple ballot choices).
    The downside to this proposal becomes lengthy ballot in States with more than 10 EV’s; though the proposal could be modified to allow for CD apportionment of EV’s.

18. Darryl,
    Look at any late 19th/early 20th century presidential “ticket” (pre Australian ballot) and you will see the names of numerous individual presidential electors listed. However, these were already pre-printed for the voters to simply drop into the ballot box.
    With district tickets (see #15), the number of EVs in a state does not matter. Only the number of ballot-qualified candidates with their slates plus independent electors would matter in the numerical computation. Voters would select only three (3) Presidential Electors, regardless of where they lived.

19. What is the EVIL INSANE FIXATION with Stone Age Electoral College gerrymander math ???

    — akin to the pre-Newton calculus math.

    Political *science* has advanced since 1787.

20. 17 –

    I think you’re on to something here, but if we could just make your proposal a bit more convoluted we might all actually forget that we’re voting to elect a person president.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.