It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An article Friday by Jim Geraghty of National Review, a leading opinion shaper for conservatives, floated moving forward with the plan in six states – Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa and Nevada – where Republicans will have total control next year. Doing so would make it “nearly impossible for the Democratic nominee to win,” Geraghty wrote. A map in the article shows much of the midwest, including Democratic strongholds like Michigan and Illinois, colored red. A caption below the map calls the idea “pretty tempting.”
Republican-controlled states that have lately gone blue in presidential elections would pass legislation that changes the way the state divvies up its electoral college votes. Instead of all going to the winner of the popular vote, they’d instead be allocated based on the winner of each congressional district, in most versions of the plan. Or, they could be split up in proportion to the popular vote in the state—so if a candidate gets 48% of the vote, he gets 48% of the electoral votes.
Or, they could be split up in proportion to the popular vote in the state—so if a candidate gets 48% of the vote, he gets 48% of the electoral votes.
originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Hey, something has to be done to offset all the illegals voting democrat.
Doing so would make it “nearly impossible for the Democratic nominee to win,”
originally posted by: interupt42
Whatever the GOP is doing to sway voters , Ted Cruz just undid with the Net neutrality fiasco.
originally posted by: sheepslayer247
oh, the hypocrisy......it burns.
Yeah and it's not as if the Dems have been trying to do away with the Electoral College for decades LOL How dare those Republicans! Ah they're all evil
originally posted by: IAMTAT
I am shocked...SHOCKED...that those wraskilly wrepublicans would actually try to win a national election by legally leveraging the power granted them by their mandated victories in the mid-terms.
Two years from now, we will have just elected a new president. We know the election date: Nov. 8, 2016. What we don’t know is just how our votes will count. Under the Constitution, states decide how to allocate Electoral College votes — and there are rumblings of change. One thing is clear: Americans rightly see the current system is failing. In any election decided by fewer than a million votes, it’s a coin flip as to whether the popular-vote winner will become president. Just as troubling, today’s politically polarized voting patterns ensure that campaigns will devote all their resources to voters in a handful of the usual swing states — think Ohio, Virginia and Florida. More than 2 in 3 Americans live in spectator states where their votes can be dismissed as irrelevant. Fortunately, our framers gave our state legislators the tools to fix presidential elections. State laws govern how states allocate electors, with states making many changes going back to the founders’ generation. Today, legislators focus on two basic reform approaches: One to join with other states to guarantee election of the national popular vote winner, and the other to act on their own to replace the winner-take-all rule for allocating electors. We prefer the National Popular Vote plan. It would put every voter on equal footing by ensuring that the winner of the most popular votes in all 50 states always earns a majority of electoral votes and, as a result, the White House. Coming in the form of a binding interstate agreement, the plan is activated only after being adopted by states that collectively represent a majority of the Electoral College. At that point, all participating states will award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
imagine had we done it by the popular vote as opposed to current way then there would have been a bush presidency.....
Even though Bush Jr. lost the nation’s popular vote to Gore by over half a million, he won the electoral college and the presidency itself. Florida was not the only problem. Similar abuses and mistreatment of voters and votes occurred in other parts of the country. A study by computer scientists and social scientists estimated that four to six million votes were left uncounted in the 2000 election.2
funny its a republican scheme coming from the new dominance they have in the senate and house but in 2011 it was a fine and dandy idea to do funny how politics works like that some times huh? i guess we found a bipartisan issue the republicans and democrats can agree on after all
Gallup's initial measure of support for the Electoral College with this wording was conducted in the first few days after the 2000 presidential election in which the winner remained undeclared pending a recount in Florida. At that time, it was already clear that Democratic candidate Al Gore had won the national popular vote over Republican George W. Bush, but that the winner of the election would be the one who received Florida's 25 Electoral College votes. During this period, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to favor replacing the Electoral College system with a popular vote system. In a Gallup poll conducted Dec. 15-17 -- shortly after the Dec. 12 Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recount, thereby deciding the election in Bush's favor -- 75% of Democrats said they would amend the Constitution so that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins. By contrast, 56% of Republicans favored keeping the Electoral College, while 41% favored replacing it with a popular vote system. Republicans have grown somewhat more amenable to adopting a popular vote system over the past decade. Now, for the first time since 2000, the majority of Republicans favor it. Independents are not quite as supportive as Democrats of the popular vote system, but the majority of them have consistently favored it.
originally posted by: howmuch4another
well there seems to be precedent...
In California, Democrats' Redistricting Strategy Paid Off
Illinois court upholds Democratic redistricting plans
Democrats also took a role in Florida redistricting battle
my congresswoman (D) is in her 5th term mostly because of lousy opponents but redistricting has definitely helped her.