Republican Hack Jon Husted wants to allocate Ohio EV by congressional district

[Badger]

As a Republican, I think this is a horrible idea in ANY state.

[Badger]

As a Republican, I think this is a horrible idea in ANY state.

Wait what?  Since when were you a Republican?

See the avatar.

[Badger]

I'd like see it done with a compromise referendum question. Combine EV-based electors with redistricting reform. That would give something to each side in OH.

You're as respectable a guy as they come, man, but a reform that maximizes proportional representation of the voters' will in exchange for another "reform" that dilutes it is NOT a good idea, regardless of the parties each getting one strike in their favor.

CD-based electoral votes is an even bigger obamination than the EC itself, and that's saying a lot. Hopefully this idea remains stillborn.

[Badger]

Am I the only one who actually prefers allocating elector votes by Congressional district to the current system (granted, with strict, strict anti-gerrymandering laws)? Ideally, we would abolish the electoral college altogether and replace it with a national popular vote system, but if we absolutely must have the electoral college, this seems like the most practical way to ensure that everyone's vote counts.

If CD based EV is applied, even with strict anti-gerrymandering laws (and don't expect the two to cross), then the result would still be a blatant skew away from proportional result of the voter's will. There are simply too many urban districts that go overwhelmingly Democratic outnumbered by mere Republican-leaning suburban and rural districts. In few states is this more apparant than Ohio.

If one believes ensuring Republicans win any even close-ish election rather than the candidate who actually got more votes, than CD based EV "reform" is for you. I'm not that type of Republican.

[Badger]

Am I the only one who actually prefers allocating elector votes by Congressional district to the current system (granted, with strict, strict anti-gerrymandering laws)? Ideally, we would abolish the electoral college altogether and replace it with a national popular vote system, but if we absolutely must have the electoral college, this seems like the most practical way to ensure that everyone's vote counts.

If CD based EV is applied, even with strict anti-gerrymandering laws (and don't expect the two to cross), then the result would still be a blatant skew away from proportional result of the voter's will. There are simply too many urban districts that go overwhelmingly Democratic outnumbered by mere Republican-leaning suburban and rural districts. In few states is this more apparant than Ohio.

If one believes ensuring Republicans win any even close-ish election rather than the candidate who actually got more votes, than CD based EV "reform" is for you. I'm not that type of Republican.

I don't think that the change would be as drastic as you suggest. Let's use your Ohio example: in 2008, Barrack Obama won 8 of Ohio's congressional districts to John McCain's 9. Giving Obama the remaining 2 electoral votes for winning a majority of the vote in the state, the final tally would have been 10 electoral votes for Barrack Obama and 9 for John McCain. No, not totally representative of how the state voted overall, but is this not more fair than giving Obama 100% of the electoral votes of a state that he only received 51% of the vote in?

But in the long run nationwide, the end result would be to give the GOP a strong built-in advantage that countermands the popular vote--every time. Even in the example you give, McCain wins a majority of CD-based EVs despite having lost Ohio by over a quarter million votes and getting less than 47% statewide.

Try this as an experiment. Has anyone posted yet what the outcome CD-based EV would be in Ohio this year? See what the results would be. Try it in any election in the last 20 years and see how much closer the GOP loss is aned how much greater the win is in the EC. Try it nationwide and in Ohio and see what happens.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama still would've won the EV this time under such a formula, but I suspect it was quite close at best, despite Romney getting under 48% of the vote and losing byover 3 and a quarter million votes (probably over 3.5 by the time provisionals and the like are counted).

It's not even an improvent on the EC in terms of ensuring the candidate with the most votes wins; it's actually a bit step back.

[Badger]

Someone please get rid of this idiot, NOW!!!

Sorry Yank, which idiot were you referring to?

Were you posting in front of your mirror again?

[Badger]

I'd like see it done with a compromise referendum question. Combine EV-based electors with redistricting reform. That would give something to each side in OH.

You're as respectable a guy as they come, man, but a reform that maximizes proportional representation of the voters' will in exchange for another "reform" that dilutes it is NOT a good idea, regardless of the parties each getting one strike in their favor.

CD-based electoral votes is an even bigger obamination than the EC itself, and that's saying a lot. Hopefully this idea remains stillborn.

Barring a constitutional amendment there will be a state-based system to select electors to the EC. They were not always decided on a winner-takes-all basis. I think it's worthwhile to remember the original intent that electors reflect the desire of a state's voters, and that includes some thinking about a division of electors within a state.

I'm not questioning the states' right to enact such a change, I'm rather firmly challenging the wisdom and fairness of doing so.

[Badger]

Got it. I wasn't entirely sure if you meant "position" as in "stance on issue" or "elected office".

I would've responded earlier, but it's so hard to find my keyboard these days.....

[Badger]

Am I the only one who actually prefers allocating elector votes by Congressional district to the current system (granted, with strict, strict anti-gerrymandering laws)? Ideally, we would abolish the electoral college altogether and replace it with a national popular vote system, but if we absolutely must have the electoral college, this seems like the most practical way to ensure that everyone's vote counts.

If CD based EV is applied, even with strict anti-gerrymandering laws (and don't expect the two to cross), then the result would still be a blatant skew away from proportional result of the voter's will. There are simply too many urban districts that go overwhelmingly Democratic outnumbered by mere Republican-leaning suburban and rural districts. In few states is this more apparant than Ohio.

If one believes ensuring Republicans win any even close-ish election rather than the candidate who actually got more votes, than CD based EV "reform" is for you. I'm not that type of Republican.

I don't think that the change would be as drastic as you suggest. Let's use your Ohio example: in 2008, Barrack Obama won 8 of Ohio's congressional districts to John McCain's 9. Giving Obama the remaining 2 electoral votes for winning a majority of the vote in the state, the final tally would have been 10 electoral votes for Barrack Obama and 9 for John McCain. No, not totally representative of how the state voted overall, but is this not more fair than giving Obama 100% of the electoral votes of a state that he only received 51% of the vote in?

But in the long run nationwide, the end result would be to give the GOP a strong built-in advantage that countermands the popular vote--every time. Even in the example you give, McCain wins a majority of CD-based EVs despite having lost Ohio by over a quarter million votes and getting less than 47% statewide.

Try this as an experiment. Has anyone posted yet what the outcome CD-based EV would be in Ohio this year? See what the results would be. Try it in any election in the last 20 years and see how much closer the GOP loss is aned how much greater the win is in the EC. Try it nationwide and in Ohio and see what happens.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama still would've won the EV this time under such a formula, but I suspect it was quite close at best, despite Romney getting under 48% of the vote and losing byover 3 and a quarter million votes (probably over 3.5 by the time provisionals and the like are counted).

It's not even an improvent on the EC in terms of ensuring the candidate with the most votes wins; it's actually a bit step back.

But you're only looking at the best case scenario for Democrats. Try it on any election CD by CD and see how GOP wins are amplified and Democratic wins are marginalized. Once you do so, you'll see exactly what I mean. Until you do, you don't fully comprehend what a stacking of the deck this is.

If you don't have time or inclination to run the numbers, just consider each chief proponent is the same uber-partisan who would leave no trick unplayed or no leaf unturned within th scope of his power to pull thee election for Romney by hook or crock(s). That, if nothing else, should tell you all you need to know.