NAACP condemns Virginia GOP plan to split electoral votes

[JohnR! 5,495]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359128843' post='5941407]

I don't know. I see this is as possibly a good thing.

The ultimate goal is to remove the electoral college as how we elect our Presidents. The closer we get to proportional representation, the closer we get to that ultimate goal.

The idea of the electoral college is mean to reflect proportional representation. If we were to remove it and go on by the popular vote, most of the flyover states would have little input in the process.

[^_^ 5,021]

If we were to remove it and go on by the popular vote, most of the flyover states would have little input in the process.

That is what I want to see happen.

[JohnR! 5,495]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359133238' post='5941561]

That is what I want to see happen.

If that were to happen, CA, NY and IL, would always pick the president. The other states would have little or no voice.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359128843' post='5941407]I don't know. I see this is as possibly a good thing.

The ultimate goal is to remove the electoral college as how we elect our Presidents. The closer we get to proportional representation, the closer we get to that ultimate goal.

Also, this would do wonders for waking up the electorate in non-general election years. Congressional elections matter and this will remind voters.

And besides, there's very little reason to believe Democrats won't push through similar changes in Democratic-run states. Even closer to proportional representation. Good thing.

But you are actually moving further away from proportional representation. When you have a situation where congressional districts are gerrymandered to result in a House Republican majority even though House Republican candidates got far fewer votes than House Democratic candidates, then something is off. Obama carried VA by a 4% margin gathering a majority of the vote (51.2%) and here you would have Romney get 70% of the state's electoral votes even though he did only get a minority of the vote of the people. There is something very wrong with that picture.

This is a clear attempt to maximize the benefit of the gerrymandering that Republicans have done following the 2010 census which thus far only delivers the House to them avene though they get fewer votes than Democrats. Same goes for state legislatures. Now they want to cement an election process where the President is elected by that minority as well. That is what I'd call a step toward tyranny when the votes of the people no longer matter.

[quote name=' timestamp='1359133238' post='5941561]

That is what I want to see happen.

Fine but this isn't a step towards that end.

[^_^ 5,021]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359129758' post='5941438]

Still biased, but less biased.

Let's take the 2012 results as an example. Obama got 51.2% of the vote in Virginia. Romney got 47.3% and Others got 1.6%.

Virginia has 13 electoral votes.

In the last election, Obama got 100% of the electoral votes, Romney got 0% of the electoral votes and Others got 0% of the electoral votes. Obama gains 49%, Romney loses 47%.

If the plan described in the original article was in place, Obama would have gotten 31% of the electoral vote and Romney would have gotten 69% of the electoral vote. Obama loses 20%, Romney gains 22%.

49, 47 in the current system.

20, 22 in the new proposed system.

Which is less biased?

Here's the actual math. Which system produces the least bias?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1359146527' post='5941986]

Here's the actual math. Which system produces the least bias?

The proposed system makes a winner out of the loser. People vote for candidate A and candidate B wins the race. That's the more biased system because it turns the election results upside down and turns them inside out.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

My vote has a caveat. I heard that republicans waited until MLK day to vote on districting while they had a temporary majority - that was dirty.

[Darnell 8,480]

So thats 4 years , roughly, to prep, aye? Electoral College votes again in roughly 4 years.

What's gonna happen prior?

Oh lets see - Gerrymandering, and migration.

Yay!

[^_^ 5,021]

[Pooky 3,931]

I don't get the reference. This system has been in place since 1787 and this feels like a thinnly made effort to make sure if we ever get another minority candidate, they won't stand a chance.

No it hasn't. For the first 50 years, the states went their own ways of deciding their candidate. The Unit Rule only became the standard method of allocation in 1836.

This proposal is by no means the first and certainly not the last attempt by either party to change the system.

And anyway, it works in Maine.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

No it hasn't. For the first 50 years, the states went their own ways of deciding their candidate. The Unit Rule only became the standard method of allocation in 1836.

This proposal is by no means the first and certainly not the last attempt by either party to change the system.

And anyway, it works in Maine.

So why now? Why the sudden change?

[Pooky 3,931]

So why now? Why the sudden change?

It's not sudden. Some Democrats made the same kind of noises after the 2000 Election, notably in NC and CO, while Republicans did the same in CA. It's not uncommon for this kind of talk to crop up after an election.

If you subscribe to The Week, they have a neat piece on this on their site at the moment (I'd link to it if I could).

[Karee 4,191]

It seems like in the current system roughly 8 states actually decide the election. Why bother voting if your not voting in one of those 8 states?

I live in Texas, and I voted once. I voted for Hilary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary because I thought McCain had a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It's not sudden. Some Democrats made the same kind of noises after the 2000 Election, notably in NC and CO, while Republicans did the same in CA. It's not uncommon for this kind of talk to crop up after an election.

If you subscribe to The Week, they have a neat piece on this on their site at the moment (I'd link to it if I could).

Thanks for the info, I stand corrected.