It seems that the only states that are considering this "more fair"
option are states that generally go Democratic in the electoral college yet
currently have Republican state governments. There is not a single state that
generally goes Republican in the electoral college that is even thinking about
making changes. In plain English, this is a Republican plan to rig
So David, what you're saying is that because your candidate lost using the
same criteria of the past 250 years it is unfair because the highly populated
urban areas get more weight, is that right? Last I checked the POTUS is elected
by citizens not geographical areas. Maybe the real answer to get your candidate
elected is to get them to represent all the citizens and not just a small
minority, like 2%. If you want to eliminate the electorial college then I will
listen but any customized gerryrigging is nothing more than an attempt to kill
democracy on behalf of plutocracy. Think about it.
But if your main concern is fairness, then surely you would also oppose
Careful review of the 2012 election shows that a change such as the one proposed
in this letter would actually result in less fair elections by making the counts
of rural voters weigh more than the votes of urban voters. As an
example: Obama won Pennsylvania by 5 points (roughly). Under the proposed
change, Rommey would get the 12 electoral votes that represent the districts he
carried, while Obama would get 8 - 6 for the districts he carried and 2 because
he won the state overall. Even though the majority of Pennsylvanians live in
urban areas/districts and voted for Obama, Romney would have gotten the majority
of the electoral votes - making him the winner of Pennsylvania. This same
scenario holds true of the other states where this change is being proposed. The last (only?) election where the winner of the popular vote did not
win the majority of the electoral votes was Bush v. Gore. The proposed change
would make that a common scenario. If we are going to make a change,
award the electoral votes based on percentage - 55% of the popular vote equals
55% of the electoral votes. That truly makes all votes count the same.
Hmmmm.How long has the GOP opposed any changes to the Electoral
College claiming that it is needed in the name of "Fairness?"But now that they lost another election, it's somehow time to change it
in the name of "Fairness?"Not all Americans are as dumb as
those who call themselves Republicans.
Without gerrymandering, and a consistent plan across the whole country, this
could be fair.However, those proposing this scenario, in the states
that are proposing it are looking for ANYTHING but fair elections. They are
merely trying to game the system for their political motives.
Hey, here's a novel idea: Whoever gets the most votes wins! The electoral
college belongs with buggy whips in the dust bin of history.
This letter can't be serious, can they?Where was their concern
over the "fairness" of the election process when their boy, Bush, was
elected despite losing the popular vote? Where was your letter than? So it was fair when Bush won but somehow unfair because Obama won? Wow. Great
logic. This just stinks of sour grapes.Repubs, you lost.
NOW GET OVER IT.Rather than focusing your time and energy on
repairing your own party and becoming more popular to the masses you are merely
focusing on frivolous and ridiculous fantasies about a "more fair"
system that would somehow help you to win elections. Just stop. Revamp your party! STOP trying to revamp our American election system.
How many more schemes will Republicans dream up to tilt elections in their
favor? Their blatant boldness about it is astounding.
Truthseeker, may I make one change in your post? How about, "Their blatant
STUPIDITY about it is astounding."
One person. One vote, equal among all.
I'm not sure why Republicans think people in rural areas should get more
than one vote (as if acreage counts more than actual people). Either keep it
the way it is, which has worked for over 200 years, or go to a system of
proportional votes based on one person one vote.
Maine and Nebraska may find a benefit, but why would a state like
California--with about 55 electors do it, reducing its weight to about 30-35 vs
20-25 or a net 5-15 electors. Republicans would love it if California did that,
but I can't see why the state would want to do that.However,
those who attack one party for scheming to improve their odds should realize
that both parties have been scheming for a long time. Both find ways to defend
the status quo when it has most recently worked for them and suggest changes
when it hasn't done so recently.It doesn't change the fact
that about half the country will like and half will not whatever the result of a