jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (71 posts)

Sore Loser GOP wants to now restructure the Electoral College?

  1. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    excerpt from a recent article

    "After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

    From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president".

    Does not the right ever learn, instead of making its policies more palatable for the majority of voters, it is a lot easier to cheat. If you check into this they are proposing these changes for states that come up blue in the electoral college. What would they say if this is applied to Texas and the South, that crimson red would become more of violet in hue?

    Republicans, as Dick Dastardly personified, are ridiculous, they never attempt to win fair and square, but subscribes to cheating and skullduggery to attain to something that they are never willing to earn: Your votes and support

    Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps the EC should fall by the wayside completely and we should use popular vote alone. To me this seems more accurate...I never liked the idea that some states have higher EC bang than others anyway.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, tammy, all these suggestions are good, the burr in my saddle is that the GOP makes suggestions for mere partisan advantage rather than reforming the system on its own merits. I would think that GOP would still be upset as they lost popular vote the last time as well, what would be their remedy for that?

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Both sides do this. It was all the rage by the Dems after the 2000 election loss as well. Take a look at how districts are continually (by both sides) being redrawn at the State and Local levels to try to shift control too. There are already one or two states that divide up their EC votes this way. Personally, I think it is a more representative way of reflecting the popular vote. I  think this should be the norm and not the exception. For the record, I've held that view for years, prior to the 2000 election, and beyond.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is fine, Sue, but it is all or nothing. The GOP would be delighted to divide up California, but would that apply to Texas as well? Would you go along with it?

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I agree it should be the norm for every State. I've felt that way for a very long time now. The problem becomes that I think that is reliant on the State legislature. Without a Constitutional Amendment altering the nature of the EC votes and how they are treated, I don't think it falls under Federal control. I don't see the Senate ever passing any such thing. Just as I wouldn't see the GOP passing any such thing after the 2000 election. It's politics and both parties play the game how it benefits them at the time.

    2. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings Cred,
      oops, Is that your bias showing?
      Pretty strong language - liars, and cheats - from what appears to be a fairly short memory.

      I seem to remember a very vocal outcry from the Dems, concerning the "wrongness" of the EC in 2004. Faint wisps of memory seem to recall similar outcries, from Dems), after other Repub presidential wins - but I have not researched it.

      But, according to you it's a Repubs issue... what changed? Is that the "cheating" you refer to?

      Gerrymandering? A little research would probably show this to be a very bipartisan activity - Charlie Wrangle's(sp?) district comes to mind. But you seem to think it is only a Repub tactic. Hmmm... maybe you should check that out to be sure.

      You should probably be sure to wear dark clothing when trying to allocate all that political "cheating and skullduggery" to one party, - the mud splatters won't be so obvious.

      I'm not saying the Repubs efforts aren't self-serving, but I would stop well short of calling them - "cheating and skullduggery" - feels more like bipartisan "business as usual" to me.

      Not your best effort. Based on my experience with previous "Credence2" forum exchanges - this reminds me of a radio "shock jock" trying to make the headlines.


      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nice of you to drop by, GA. Happy New Year 

        The GOP makes it own headlines, it certainly does not need me. Considering all the issues of this last election season, one party come out for me as clearly more self-serving than the other, it was the one that got its clock cleaned last November....

        You and I both know that you lean rightward and of course I am not gonna be seen as impartial by you under the circumstances Were you not the one that was telling that the GOP legislature's drive for this so called voter Id was not a partisan ploy?  I don't know, maybe its that 'liberal media" Yeah, right.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And Happy New Year right back to you.

          Yes, I do lean right, but not far enough to be a Republican.

          I even like and support most of Pres. Obama's foreign policy positions - I know, that's blasphemy from a non-liberal/progressive.

          It's his domestic policies I have issues with. Or, probably more correctly stated - The policies of the "powers-that-be" in his party.

          And there is a difference between being "not as impartial" and "suffering from apparent short-term memory loss"

          speaking of memory loss - no, I did not say the Repub's efforts to promote voter ID laws were not a political ploy - I said I saw no problem with voter ID laws. I still don't.


          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "I even like and support most of Pres. Obama's foreign policy positions - I know, that's blasphemy from a non-liberal/progressive."

            Hardly, GA, it is a pleasant surprise. I still think that our foreign policy is far too beligerant, but I accept the President's approach for now as real-politik.

            Changing the subject, why was the GOP ignoring the absentee ballot issue where there was obviously much more potential for fraud? How sincere they were about this issue, really?  I make no bones about it, I don't care for the rightwing philosophy over most everything that  is under the sun, most everything.
            The President's political philosophy, as center left, is 'right on' for me

      2. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ganted, GA, but the Conservatives have been able to accomplish something the Liberals never did (not saying they didn't want to, of course); they created an effectively homogeneous Republican Party made up of primarily far-Right conservatives - Madison would call this arrangement a faction.  Factionalism, as I mentention elsewhere here, especially as it is expressing itself in Congress today, and is exactly what Madison, Hamilton, Jefferon, Adams, Washington, and many others strove to aviod;  They designed the Constitution (or at least provided the theoretical background n the case of Adams and Jefferson) such an occurance.  Apparently they didn't conceive of the possibility of gerrymandering for it would have been easy enough to include a rule prohibiting it.

        In my view, gerrymandering is about as unAmerican, at least in the ways our founders envisioned it, as you can get; it turns the purpose of the Constitution on its head.

    3. Wayne Brown profile image85
      Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Habee makes a good point although I believe that such an approach might end up in more ties than not.  It certainly would make the candidates work harder in the states with a smaller number of EC votes and bring more balance in terms of individual voice.  Of course, the two party system (either side of the aisle) would be against the possibility of any third party carrying off any votes as it would add to splintering in the party base as we saw with the GOP when Ross Perot threw his hat into the ring and splintered the conservative vote to the benefit of Bill Clinton.  Regardless, there are events taking place in elections which make no sense....like over 900,000 votes being cast in one county in PA and not one going to Romney...seems rather statistically offbase.  ~WB

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, Wayne, Habee has a point, but in some compromise for the smaller states and deference to its Constitutional foundation, I could live with the EC I do not mind the smaller populated states having a voice as long as that voice can never prevail over the larger populated areas, for the sheer reason that is obvious. . The fact is that it has been exceeding rare when the electoral college tally was contrary to the popular vote. and of course it did not change the outcome of 2012, but may well have in 2000. Conservatives, I would have thought would be more for maintaining the status quo as progressives candidates (Democrats) are with rare exception always are going to do better in large population centers.

    4. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They need to restructure the current Administration first.    Like........fire it and reinstate people who are fit for it.

      As far as the Electoral College.........there's one thing they should change, and  that is the ability of any Elector to vote differently from what the citizens want.    From what I read,  an Elector can vote any way he/she wants to, and if they don't uphold the majority vote of citizens, all they have to do is pay a fine or take a tongue-lashing or maybe be banned from the group.   That's not right at all.

      Other than that,  it is the Democrat Party that needs restructured,  or returned to how it used to be.  Remember,  the nomination of Obama doesn't even fit in with the history of Democrat nominees, and the vetting process was non-existent,  so the Party apparently allowed itself to be morphed into something else.   They should call it what it is (whatever that is--Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Muslim.....?)  or else admit they erred before the Democrat Party dies if it's not already dead.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, I wasn't going to say anything, but I just must. It is obvious you are a christian from everything I have read in your posts,etc...So, why do you use such hateful dsiregaurd to the President of the United States of America? I'm sorry but that is a very unchristian attitude. You are welcome to your views and opinions, you have evry right to express your feelings. But why as a christian woman would you be so disrespectful? I believe this is the problem with our country today. I didn't like W, but...when he sat in that chair, I gave him the respect he deserved as POTUS.Since he has left office I have said my true feelings, but when he sat there, I would have never been so disrespectful or would have never wanted the rest of the world to see our country as a divided nation. I hope you do not feel I am disrespecting you or your views, but the hate speech really needs to stop in this country. We should show the respect owed, he won because more people voted for him, more people liked his views, that's the reason the bitterness needs to end before we destroy our country.It's the right thing to do, and it's the Christian thing to do...

      2. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for weighin in Brenda, whatever "floats your boat". Obviously, I am not going to agree with your assessment, as there are many of us Democrats that do not consider themselves Marxist, Communist, etc.

        The Dems are the more moderate between the two parties from my view and the view of the majority of the voting populace in 2012. And it looks like the GOP needs to soon dispense with the smoke and mirrors and deal with the reason why they are falling back in term of demographic reality instead of moving the pea under a different shell?

    5. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Credence. Nice to see ya.

      There have been many proposals in the past to abolish or to revise the Electoral College. It is an issue that comes up every four years ad nauseam. In spite of the number and frequently of these efforts, they have ALL failed largely because the alternatives to the EC are far more problematic than is the College itself. There are a number of negative ramifications that will result from changing a system that has worked for over 200 years and is not at all broken.

      What do Andrew Jackson (1824), Samuel J. Tilden (1876), Grover Cleveland (1888), and Al Gore (2000) have in common? After 220 years, 56 presidential election cycles, and 44 elected presidents, these four men are the ONLY candidates for President of the United States to win a plurality of the popular vote and to loose in the EC. This 4-out-of-56 record clearly shows that the system is overwhelming effective in electing candidates not only favored by the majority of the nation's population, but also favored by the majorities within the individual states. The EC strikes a brilliant balance between federalism, states' rights and individual equality. To eliminate the EC to promote individual equality places the principles of federalism and state's rights at risk when it is all three that make our republic unique. {1}

      It is my view that the EC functioned remarkably well for over 200 years; achieved all of the Constitutional objectives for which it was created; and has agreed with the sentiments of the majority of voters in 52 out of 56 elections. More importantly, it is one of the last surviving vestiges of states' rights while also forcing candidates to respect the needs and aspirations of Americans living in small states.

      In reality, the Electoral College combines both the size of a candidate's popular support with the distribution of that support among the states. It represents two majority votes not just one! The system is overwhelming effective in balancing the majority of the nation’s popular vote with the majority of the populations within each individual state. Doing away with the EC just to promote individual equality places another principal of states’ right at risk. When all state’s rights have been eliminated the 3–legged stool of federalism, states’ rights, and individual equality collapses along with all of our safeguards against tyranny.

      The purpose of the EC is to stabilize the whole election process. Without it, the presidential election could be unfairly influenced by the nine states with over 50% of the population leaving little or no influence in those 25 states with a combined population of only 17% of the total nation. {2}

      In my opinion, if it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it!
      {1} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
      {2} http://exploredia.com/population-of-us-states-2011/

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As usual, I'm with you Quill.

    6. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The basis and reasoning behind the electoral college and its freedom to vote how it sees fit is fight what Madison, Hamilton, Washington, et all perceived as factionalism.  The fear of factionalism is also behind the two year-term for the House and the rotating six-year term for the Senate as well as the bi-cameral form itself in addition to limiting how many people each Congressperson can represent.  They did everything in their power to reduce the probability of one faction assuming control and becoming tyrants, which is why they opposed demecracy and preferred republicanism.

      The Constitution left it up to each State on how to choose its electors, but once chosen, the electors were free to vote for whomever they thought best.  So, in the beginning, the fledgling parties, the Federialsts and  Democratic-Republican, fought hard for these elector's votes (the candidates themselves stayed out of the fray.)

      Over time, all States chose to use the popular vote to pick electors and it became common practice for the electors to follow the will of the people.

      I used to think a straight popullar vote, by-passing the EC, would be a good thing until I realized the the top 20 major metropoliton statistical areas in America contain 38% of its citizens while the top 10 contain 25%.  Anyone want to guess which party will permanently control the WH under a popular vote system?

      As mentioned elsewhere, two states, Maine and one other, parcel out their EC votes based on the outcome in certain districts.  Personally, if redisctricting was done like it is in CA and a few other states, by an independent, non-partisan panel, then I think that is an excellent idea; and you don't need a Constitutional amendment to have it happen, either.

    7. taburkett profile image62
      taburkettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The constitution states that the electoral representatives shall vote according to the will of the people from their district not for the state overall.  This has never been changed by the citizens.  In many of the states you are speaking of, the voters have demanded a change due to the fact that the winner only won 1 or 2 districts while the supposed loser won all the rest.  In many of these states, that means that the rules used for the election actually caused a fraudulent vote for the one that was elected.  The citizens now recognize the falacy of the system under this and are demanding that the state recind its all-for-one concept.  This has little to do with anything other than correcting the fraud in the voting system.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, the Constitution is quite silent on that issue.  All it says is "Each State may appoint, in such Manner as each Legislature thereof may direct , a Number of Electors, equal to ...  The Electors shal Meet in their respective States and vote by Ballot for two Persons, one of whom shall not be an inhabitant of the same State ..."  Consequently, there is nothing fraudulent that I can see.  Further, in the case you mention, I am guessing 90% lived in the one or two districts while 10%, probably due to redistricting lived in rest, probably due to redistricting in order to increase the number of conservative Congresspersons.

  2. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 3 years ago

    I've never thought the EC system was fair. I think the EC is a good way to go, but the votes should be proportional to the popular vote for a state. For example, let's say that Smith gets 46% of a state's popular vote. Jones gets 45%, and a third candidate gets the rest. Why should Smith get all the EC votes?

    You can't just blame the Rs for this. The losing side often wants to change the EC. And yes, I agree with you that the Rs should be concentrating on other issues, like making their tent larger, for one thing.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Habee, thanks for weighin in. Yes, the viability of the Electoral College has been under discussion for some time. But that is how the GOP won in 2000, I did not hear any problems with 'the system' then. I am not saying that such a discussion should not be held. But the trend of the GOP: voter suppression, gerrymandering added to this is revealing a pattern of not addressing their failure in the way you suggest ' making the tent larger'. Perhaps from their perspective, that solution is too difficult and it is simply easier to cheat?

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're right that the GOP didn't complain about the EC in 2000, but Al Gore and the Democrats sure did. 

        Let's just look at the issue of the Electoral College.  Both sides agree that it could do with a makeover of some sort.

  3. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    habee's right on both counts; the EC is not the best way to go, and it doesn't matter which side wins a state the other will claim "foul" and demand changes. 

    It's also been my observation that those complaining that the losing side wants change will be first to demand change because "the other side cheats" when they lose themselves.  Nothing new here in the R's actions or the OP's disdain of those actions.  Both are as predictable as the time of sunrise.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wilderness and Habee, would you support the idea to throw out the EC and use popular vote alone?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Tough question, and not easily answered.  By doing so will we find that California, New York and a handful of other states will completely control elections?  Voters in Montana, Wyoming and Iowa may as well stay home?  (Of course, it's nearly that way now!). 

        Will the needs of small population states be totally ignored?

        I tend to think that the opposite would be the result, that every individual vote would actually count more, but I could be wrong.  In Idaho (my state) there is no reason for any Democrat to ever vote; the R's will win no matter what they do and the EC will go R.  At least single D votes would matter without the EC.  We might even see independent candidates win a few elections! 

        Overall, I think it would be a good thing, particularly if states follow along with the concept.  The whole idea of voting precincts  is far too similar to the EC to work well, and would probably be better off with a simple popular vote.

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, Wilderness, in a popular vote scenario, that is the rub, the population centers are going to rule the day, is that not fair for you? We can't have it both ways, one of the advocates for the continuation ot the EC said that it forced national candidates to give consideration to 'fly over states' in his or her outreach and not win based on sheer numbers in specific regions of the country.

          I can take it either way, as long as it is consistent and not for baldface partisan advantage.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usp … opular.htm
            Only 4 Presidents have won without the popular vote, W being one in 2000...What may our country look like if Al Gore had won by popular vote? Food for thought smile

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Considering Mr. Environment just sold his Current TV to, of all people, Al-Jazeera , I think we should be rather thankful we dodged that bullet. Not just because he was fine taking oil money, but because, let's be honest, we all know exactly what Al-Jazeera stands for.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Prince al-Walid bin Talal owns 5.5% of Fox News and has bragged of his ability to change headlines....I know what you mean Sassy, scary times we are living in today.

                1. 59
                  whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  5.5%? Wow...

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Rupert Murdock owns the rest, just as bad in my opinion...But, everyone has their opinions, don't they smile

                2. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, I wasn't really even speaking of news outlet stuff per se. I only meant that Al-Jazeera threw him a big birthday bash and everything. Would not want a man who thought it was cool to lie down with the likes of Al-Jazeera as our President.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn't tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind's late brother was an investor in the president's former oil business in Texas. He also hasn't leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks. "

                    They all have skeletons in their closets I'm afraid sad

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it's not fair.  As long as DC portions out the quantities of money it does, as long as it makes laws for the entire country, ALL locations and people need to have a say.  Should we shrink the federal government to the size it was originally intended to be, I would most likely have no problem with it.

            On the other hand, we might see large territories become the norm instead of individual states: the NE, the South, the Midwest, West Coast, etc.  Overall, and speaking very generally, the area between the Mississippi and the Rockies votes one way.  Would a popular vote allow that huge area to override the limitations of the EC where the number of votes are so limited? 

            "baldface partisan advantage" - have you ever watched as precinct lines are re-drawn in individual states?  There can be no more baldface partisanship arguments that those on where those lines are drawn, and I don't care what state or which party is in local power.

          3. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But you see, it isn't fair and I'll explain why I say that. Here in PA, most of the state is rural, conservative. You have Pittsburgh (and surrounding areas) and Philly (and some surrounding areas). Consistently, the local denizens within the urban areas extend voting times, giving an advantage to the Dems. Not only that, you are talking about transportation as well. There is little to zero public transportation outside those urban areas, and voting stations are not convenient. Within my own county, the nearest voting station could well be 20 miles away. This becomes more than an inconvenience for those working.
            I'd like to see Districts gone within States too. Why can't just the entire state vote for their Representatives and Senators? Wouldn't that better reflect the states population than tiny Districts? Especially when there is real abuse with realignment of Districts to try to determine outcome.
            I don't claim to have all the answers, but I don't believe the current EC is a fair and accurate representation of the population. I think you'd increase the number of voters who actually vote as well, if they felt their vote actually made a difference.

        2. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, I live in TN, always Red, would love to see how many actually vote democrat, I think it would be a more fair system, popular vote that is, at least all of our votes count.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I do too, but I can also see where it could also cause abuse. 

            At the same time consider that very few presidents have won without winning the popular vote.  Maybe a change would accomplish exactly nothing - I just haven't looked into this in enough depth to have a real opinion.

            1. tammybarnette profile image60
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

              Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

              Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

              Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

              http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe … html#whyec

              To me it seems we have long passed the need for the EC...

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We don't need a constitutional amendment, we just need the right interpretation of what we have.

                Everyone is their own EC vote - those votes are tallied in the voting booth that also determines which party gets your individual EC vote.  Each state gets as many EC votes as it had voters.  Your vote chooses the EC vote, which is then counted via the same ballot.

                Easy!  lol

                Actually, that is a part of the problem, and I just can't see our current political process ever again passing a constitutional amendment.  With the numbers needed to to so it requires working together, and we've forgotten how to do that.

                1. tammybarnette profile image60
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Amen, So many common sense solutions but getting them to agree is impossible...So sad, and detrimental to us all.

          2. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this


            Last election TN went 60% Romney , 39 % Obama

            1. tammybarnette profile image60
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              AV, Thanks:) I finally found it googling,LOL...Hope you are doing well, have missed our banter.

      2. habee profile image92
        habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm on the fence with that, as I can see both sides. I still think a proportional EC count would be a good compromise.

  4. 59
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    The Electoral system should not be changed, remember not too long ago the whiner DNC wanted it scrapped.

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Does anybody know whether the proposal would have changed the result of the 2012 presidential election?

    Seems to me the effect of partisan gerrymandering is a greater concern. It has been one of the main factors in creating the extreme divisiveness in Congress by removing any willingness to compromise on the part of Dems or Republicans from districts rendered safe by gerrymandering. In many states last year the Republicans elected a majority of representatives even though the Democrats' total vote for congressmen was greater.

    1. Greekgeek profile image97
      Greekgeekposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No. Obama is one of the few two-term presidents to have won more than 50% of the popular vote on BOTH elections (the other three being FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan). Romney's final tally was 47%.

      The GOP is trying to find some way so that the electoral college will be more in its favor, or some other system to help them out, having lost the popular vote in three of the last four presidential elections.

      They're actually going against the Constitution, in this, since they're trying to do away with states' rights to pick their electors.

      I don't really like the electoral college -- it's pretty bad when a president gets in due to fishy redistricting after losing the popular vote. On the other hand, I do see the point that if we go with a straight popular vote, urban centers will dominate all the elections. And that's not a good thing either.

    2. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I, think, you have it exactly right, Ra[ph.

  6. American View profile image59
    American Viewposted 3 years ago

    The electoral vote is based on representation so small states can have a say, otherwise big states like California and New York would always dominate.

    Does there need to be a change is a good question. There does need to be a change because in the last election California had the same electoral count as it did in the last 2 elections. But the population has dropped, people are leaving that over taxed and continuing to raise taxes state. Nevada and Arizona are the benefactors of this migration. Therefore they should get more electoral votes and California should have less. I wonder if because of who is in charge is the reason that has not occurred yet?

    Would it have changed the election, who knows, probably not. This election was much closer than Democrats want to admit and that is why they are afraid of a change to the election system. No ID cards, no redistricting despite population shifts, no removing of improper people on the voter rolls, they are against all of it.

    In case you are wondering why I said it was so close despite the large electoral votes for Obama,  look at the swing states closely, it would only have take less than 300,000 votes total spread over several states  and Romney wins while losing the popular vote. As Tammy said earlier, food for thought.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for dropping by AV,
      Small states should always have a voice and of course states with larger populations are entitled to proportionately more say, don't you think?

      You would have to think that there is some conspiracy within the Bureau of Census as the determination as to no. of  congressional district and subsequently electors for the college is a result of the census tally every ten years. From what I see California has not lost enough to merit losing any electors as this has been the same since 2000. Even if they have loss population, if has to show in the next census. And, I am most certain that the present administration has nothing to do with twisting a process that has been in use since the founding of the republic.

      Well AV, join the club, I was not happy about GW Bush's win under circumstances that were even more controversial and if I recall, Gore won the popular vote.
      Best wishes to you and yours... Cred2

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Voter suppression didn't work so GOP has another plan to steal the next election:

    "'Earlier this week, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus endorsed a Republican plan to rig the next presidential election to make it nearly impossible for the Democratic candidate to win the White House, no matter who the American people vote for. The election-rigging plan, which would allocate electoral votes by congressional district rather than by states as a whole in a handful of states that consistently vote for Democratic presidential candidates, would have allowed Mitt Romney to narrowly win the Electoral College last November despite losing the popular vote by nearly four points.' "

    http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Penns … 8-650.html

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny you should say this, Ralph, those are my sentiments, exactly

    2. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "    The proposed Colorado system, which will be on the ballot for voter approval in November, is quite different. It would prorate all of the state’s electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote. In practice, this means that the loser will always get at least four of Colorado’s nine electoral votes.
      To see how this system would have worked in 2000, Bush won all eight of Colorado’s electoral votes (it received another in the 2000 census) and got 271 nationwide, compared to Gore’s 266. If Bush had only gotten five electoral votes in Colorado and Gore had gotten the other three, then Gore would have won the election with 269 electoral votes to Bush’s 268. (The total does not add to 538 because one elector from the District of Columbia apparently did not vote.)

      Although there are legitimate criticisms to make of the Electoral College, the Colorado effort is nothing but a transparently partisan effort to give Kerry a couple of extra electoral votes. If the election this year is as close as the polls suggest that it will be, it could mean the margin of victory."

      Let's not act like this is a GOP thing. As for voter ID, there is nothing wrong with that either. We have to show ID for anything else. I'm bothered by the fact that the Dems are afraid if voters have to show who they are and that they have the right to vote where they are voting.

      As for cheating, again, you can take a look just at Philly here to see how the Dems continually try to cheat. They threw out poll observers in districts in Philly, surprise, surprise, they were all Republican observers. Hmmm...wonder what that little game was to accomplish? Both sides push the envelope. All the time.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sue, why would the state of Colorado go out of its way to give Kerry and advantage?. I lived there for many years and despite the changes toward the Democrats in recent years, relative to other Blue states, Colorado is a newcomer and is still quite conservative.

        As I have said numerous times of several articles, this Voter ID things requires bi-partisan acceptance and implementation, when I see the Reds promoting it almost exclusively, something is rotten in Denmark.

        The popular vote solution seems the answer for you regardless of which political party benifits as a result.

        BTW  Those 'observers' in Philly have had difficulty as they were there to harrass and intimidate more than to monitor, I've got the GOP MO down pat....Where were the Democrat observers in the primarily GOP counties in Pennsylvania?

  8. GuitarGear profile image81
    GuitarGearposted 3 years ago

    I wouldn't be surprised at anything the Republicans do.  They're desperate now.  The Republican party is in a shambles and they have lost any sense of credibility.  They probably have quite a few mutant rabbits yet to be pulled out of their very ragged Harry Potteresque Sorting hat.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, GG, thanks for dropping by. I believe that the party should focus its efforts on its platform and its policies as a way to broaden the base, which will be necessarily if they want to avoid being a 'regional party' only. To try to manipulate the franchise and the process as to how votes are cast is only going to backfire. I know that all the groups that believed that the GOP was involved in backhanded disenfranchisement, came out in record numbers. All they did was to rouse a sleeping giant, have we learned our lesson yet?

  9. Borsia profile image62
    Borsiaposted 3 years ago

    I've been in favor of eliminating the electoral college completely for decades and going to a true straight democracy rather than a representative democracy.
    The time when the college was needed is long gone and we should have 1 person 1 vote today.
    It should also be changed so that everyone votes on the same day and that day should be a national holiday to ensure that everyone who wants to vote has an equal chance to do so.
    I don't think this favors any one party over another, neither would changing the electoral college to have the votes divided by the popular vote for that matter.
    Over the years both parties have supported or opposed it depending on who held power at that moment but it isn't needed any more and should be done away with IMHO.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this


    2. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I can live with that Borsia, but maybe either side thinks that it would change the outcome of the election and both are mistaken.

  10. BloodRedPen profile image73
    BloodRedPenposted 3 years ago

    Please allow me to propose a concept that has been around for many years. But politicians(of both parties) eliminate quickly because it would take the power away from them and give it back to the people.

    First eliminate the electoral college. Go to the popular vote (the peoples vote)
    Second create a national primary. So all candidates of all parties are presented to the people. Individual state primaries (on different dates) cause money and power brokers to be the ones to select your candidate for you.


  11. taburkett profile image62
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    The electoral college is composed of ellectorates equal to the numer of representatives plus senators.
    If we operated the electoral college correctly, each district in the state would cast a vote for the winner of their specific district.
    This would elimniate the false voting for those districts that did not vote for the overall state winner.
    This would then require every candidate for President to win all districts, not just 2 or 3 in a state.
    This would also provide the correct power of the people.
    This is the original plan from the founding fathers.
    Not using this is what has caused major problems like chads, faulty voting machines, multiple votes, etc.
    If the person running for President actually had to win all districts, then it would eliminate some of the potential fraud.
    The corruption is not between the parties, it is between the politicians and the people.
    The power of the people will only be restored if we honestly follow the Constitution.

  12. Living Well Now profile image79
    Living Well Nowposted 3 years ago

    Most people live in urban areas. The trend of moving to urban areas is ongoing. Republicans are fond of showing state maps where a majority of counties (and states) are red (and rural) and whining about disenfranchised rural voters, even though the majority of the population lives in urban areas that are blue counties (and states). Democracy is about majority rule - one person, one vote - and not about land area or population density. Off-the-cuff EC calculations - based on the proposed unconstitutional GOP gerrymandering - show a candidate who ends up with over 60% of the U.S. popular vote in a two-party presidential race losing the election.

    Republicans wouldn't control the House if GOP-controlled state legislatures hadn't engaged in heavy-handed gerrymandering the last three election cycles. Tyranny of the minority...

    1. 59
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Democracy is about majority rule"

      Yes, which explains why the United States is a Republic.

      http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri … emrep.html