Republicans seek to change how electoral votes are allocated

President Obama won the popular presidential vote in November by slightly less than five million votes: The president received about 65.9 million votes to Mitt Romney's 60.9 million. Of course, it's not the popular vote that matters, as 2000 popular vote winner Al Gore could tell you. It's electoral votes that decide who becomes president.

Mr. Obama's electoral vote victory was actually significantly larger than his 3.9 percentage point popular vote advantage: He took 332 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. Why the disparity? In part because of the way electoral votes are allocated. Most states allocate their electoral votes based on who wins the popular vote: Even though Mr. Obama only won Florida narrowly in November, for instance, he got all 29 of its electoral votes.

There are two states that do things differently. In Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes are allocated based on who wins each congressional district. That means that the winner of the statewide popular vote doesn't necessarily get all of a state's electoral votes - or even the majority of them.

The allocation system used by Nebraska and Maine has never been seen as a big deal, because neither state plays a very big role in deciding the president. (Between them, they only controlled nine electoral votes in 2012.) But a push by Republicans in some crucial swing states to adopt the system used in those two small states has Democrats accusing the GOP of effectively plotting to steal the next presidential election.

Republican lawmakers in at least five big states that went to Mr. Obama in November have floated measures to allocate electoral votes based on the outcome in congressional districts: Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In Virginia, a bill to shift to such a system goes to a state senate committee on Tuesday. State Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr., who sponsored the bill, told the Washington Post that it would mean that smaller, non-urban communities would have more say in the presidential election. "The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn't matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them," he said. (In Carrico's bill, the state's two at-large electors would go to whoever wins the most congressional districts.)

Mr. Obama won four districts in Virginia in 2012. Romney won seven. Under Carrico's plan, Romney would have taken nine of Virginia's 13 electoral votes, while Mr. Obama would have taken just four - despite winning the statewide vote by almost 150,000 votes. This is due in large part to the fact that Romney won most of his districts relatively narrowly - he took more than 60 percent of the vote in just one of them - while Mr. Obama won his districts by large margin, taking at least 60 percent of the vote in three of his four districts.

"It's sore losers, it's a sore losers bill," said Virginia Democratic state senator and former gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds. "We're going to do everything we can to defeat it."

Emory University political science professor Alan Abramowitz, who considers the Carrico proposal and those like it to be "profoundly undemocratic" because it skews election results toward the party that has drawn gerrymandered congressional districts, found that if all states had allocated electoral votes in 2012 by congressional district, Romney would have taken 276 electoral votes (and with them the presidency) to Mr. Obama's 262 electoral votes. That's despite Mr. Obama's nearly 5 million vote advantage in the popular vote. (Abramowitz' calculation was based on the notion that the two at-large electors would go to the statewide popular vote winner, not whoever won the most congressional districts.)

According to Abramowitz, Romney would have won 12 out of 18 electoral votes in Ohio, nine out of 16 electoral votes in Michigan, 12 out of 20 electoral votes in Pennsylvania, and five out of 10 electoral votes in Wisconsin - despite losing all four states, in some cases by large margins. (Because of incomplete data, he had to estimate from previous data in some Pennsylvania districts.) 

It's no coincidence that the states where Republicans are pushing proposals to shift to allocation based on congressional districts were all won by Mr. Obama in November - but are controlled by Republicans on a statewide level. Reince Priebus, the newly reelected chair of the Republican National Committee, said Friday that while such efforts are a "state issue," he is "pretty intrigued by it" and believes "in some cases they should look at it." In Michigan, Rep. Pete Lund, a Republican who plans to introduce a bill soon, told the Detroit News that it would make the system "more representative of the people -- closer to the actual vote." Lund, who introduced a similar measure last year, added that part of the reason it did not get traction lat time is that there "were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take (electoral) votes from him."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[TheresaBrewerton]

The Electoral College is out of date system. It should be the popular vote that wins. Only because it is based on the majority vote of the people. There are many things that need to be changed about our voting process.

[harv823]

The Republicans could care less about our country. They will do any voter suppression and cheating just to make sure that we Middle Class "stay in our place."

[TimeToEvolve]

The Republicons can do all the election rigging they want. The American people will not stand for a political party ruling with a significant minority of the popular vote.

So go ahead Republicons, make my day.

[TimeToEvolve]

Either that or we just get rid of the electoral college since the Republicons can't handle it.

[myopinionpal]

The republican answer to loosing a fair election, is to change the rules everytime they loose to get a win.

[DKL48442]

We should enact a law that if the electorial college vote and the popular vote doesn't come out the same, that the popular vote of the people will prevail. The current system has only failed twice in history, but this law would ensure the popular choice of the people was always elected to office. We should also do away with absentee ballots, allow voting in person only and ensure a drivers license or state issued ID is checked against the voters registration. I have lost confidence in the election process due to the Absentee Ballots. Last election we had more votes than registered voters, we also had record numbers (up as much as 400% higher than typical)of absentee ballots in certain areas, these issues should show us that this part of the system can be abused and should be eliminated.

[hillzagain]

erasmus111 replies:
Yeah, with us being #1 for being the LEAST corrupt, there ain't much to attack.

You are our entertainment. : )
_________________________________

Excellent point E, as a backwater, you and your guys are nothing more than spectators on the world stage. Beside, LOL, what is there worth corrupting up there? But revel in your #1 status anyway, you'll be just as irrelevant tomorrow as you are today.

[erasmus111]

Hate to tell you this, but you guys are nothing, now. You are a once great country that has sunk just about as low as it can get. All eyes are on you, but it isn't because you are envied. Those times have passed. You are looked upon as LOSERS who can't get their sh*t together.

Nope, it isn't just us that are spectators, it's the world. We are all just sitting back shaking our heads wonder how people can be THAT stupid.

[WhereisOT]

With the billionaires throwing away billions, the hide behind $ greed driven animals who continue to trash this Nation and its People...
With voter suppression, lies, lies, fear fear...and on and on..
With 4 years of hate, lies, fear on their network and by their "king" moron on the radio.....
And still a loss....
So..."change" what "we" are, what we stand for....(nothing much)...No way, its in our blood...we are of a higher class, the ruling class....The masses are too stupid to know whats best for them...

These anti Society anti GOV idiots (who rather blatantly use GOV to screw your lives) don't take rejection very well do they...
How does the party of stupid speak to their followers..

"It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again"

[1pheasant1]

brent126 replies:
I think Congress should review this anyway.
_________________________________________

It's a State's issue, not the Federal Government's.

[mkeey]

GOP is totally sick. They should rather listen to the people,than an endeavour to suppress,steal or manipulate the people's voting right.The old adage that goes "Move the goalposts, if you are losing!" is archaean and was a set of mind back in days, when vast majority of human were less educated.In contemporary today,in this age of information-technology, in this age, where social equality and justice is taking the shape of its real definition;its real GOD giving natural meaning,in an age where we as people have become more smart than in the "nuclear age" such mind set will not clinch to the power of our common sense.

[hokie123]

Talk about rigging an election. How was it possible for Mr. Obama to get every single vote in so many districts in Illinois and Ohio. Not statistically possible. Everyones vote should count equally. The Electoral College is a joke. How can you say the todays more educated when the US ranks near the bottom of areas of Subject Knowledge when judged against other Nations?

[signseeker1717]

The Electoral College was established by the Founders and imbedded in the Constitution. If it's a "joke", are there any OTHER parts of the Constitution that are a "joke"?

My guess is you wouldn't say that about the Second Amendment. But some people like to cherry pick...

[outback_jackson]

MORTY says: "Another question for Jackson.."




I don't need to answer questions from 3rd graders that couldn't find their azz with both hands, while posting nothing but lies.

[thechooch1]

outback_jackson your should hang out with older kids then.

[signseeker1717]

Give 'em H, Jackson.