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

[Devils30]

I think the CD method presents a "one person, one vote" challenge. Legislatures can allocate electors as they choose but this provision was enacted before the 14th amendment. The idea that someone can win more electoral votes in a state while getting 44% of the vote seems ripe for an equal protection violation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

These need to be a non-partisan position, yesterday.

[muon2]

I think the CD method presents a "one person, one vote" challenge. Legislatures can allocate electors as they choose but this provision was enacted before the 14th amendment. The idea that someone can win more electoral votes in a state while getting 44% of the vote seems ripe for an equal protection violation.

If that were an issue then the NPVIC would be a problem as well. States that have signed up for it could in principle give all their electors to a candidate that won none of the state's popular vote, since only the national vote would matter. Also the precedent of two states using the method has not been overturned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think the CD method presents a "one person, one vote" challenge. Legislatures can allocate electors as they choose but this provision was enacted before the 14th amendment. The idea that someone can win more electoral votes in a state while getting 44% of the vote seems ripe for an equal protection violation.

Actually, if any "one person, one vote" challenge were to be brought and succeed, it would be to force electors to be elected from single-member districts.

[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.

[BlueSwan]

Doesn't it really come down to this:

1) Why appoint electors by congressional district, when you can have actual proportional representation instead?

2) Why have actual proportional representation statewise, when that would equal having a national popular vote?

Basically, my position is that EITHER you keep the system as it is OR you switch to deciding the presidency by national popular vote. I strongly support the latter, even though it would make presidential elections far less entertaining for people like us.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It's actually super stupid for the GOP. Ohio is slightly more R than the national vote so in a close election like 2000 it gives the Dems 4 extra ev and probably hurts the GOP the majority of the time.

Shooting themselves in the foot seems to have been the standard Republican MO for a while now...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

I see your eyes haven't improve since I forcibly removed them!


If you read the second post, it is clearly a reference the unesteemed and inhonorable state Secretaries of State.

[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.....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.....

That really doesn't even make sense any other way. The allocation of EV's should be non-partisan? Yea, Washington anybody?

[Sound + Vision]

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.

Since I couldn't find the Ohio congressional district results for this year, and I already found the results by congressional district last election, I just found how many congressional districts each candidate won in 2008: last election, Barrack Obama carried 242 congressional districts. He also carried 28 states, which would have given him a total of 298 electoral votes, or 55% of all 538 electoral votes up for grabs. True, this is significantly closer than the 68% of the electoral votes that Barrack Obama actually won, but it's still slightly greater than his 53% of the popular vote. No built-in Republican advantage there.

HOWEVER, in 2004, George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts and 31 states, which would have given him 317 electoral votes -  59% of the total electoral votes, far greater than the 51% that he received in the popular vote. So there, Republicans really would have been advantaged beyond just the electoral college result being made to more closely reflect the popular vote.

This year's results by congressional district have yet to be released and I don't particularly feel like counting the results of each individual congressional district in the 2000 election to see who would have benefited more, so I'll just end by saying that while the Republicans would indeed be benefited by the adoption of the electoral-vote-by-congressional-district method, I'm still not entirely convinced of how huge that benefit would be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What does it take to do so? Please, tell me a simple vote is not sufficient.

[muon2]

What does it take to do so? Please, tell me a simple vote is not sufficient.

Changes to elector allocation generally takes the form of a bill passed and signed by the Gov. That's how it's been in the states that have passed NPVIC.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What does it take to do so? Please, tell me a simple vote is not sufficient.

Changes to elector allocation generally takes the form of a bill passed and signed by the Gov. That's how it's been in the states that have passed NPVIC.

So the OHGOP could do that alone without caring about anybody else? *shudder*

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What does it take to do so? Please, tell me a simple vote is not sufficient.

Changes to elector allocation generally takes the form of a bill passed and signed by the Gov. That's how it's been in the states that have passed NPVIC.

So the OHGOP could do that alone without caring about anybody else? *shudder*

We can kill it just like we killed SB 5

[Dan the Roman]

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.

Since I couldn't find the Ohio congressional district results for this year, and I already found the results by congressional district last election, I just found how many congressional districts each candidate won in 2008: last election, Barrack Obama carried 242 congressional districts. He also carried 28 states, which would have given him a total of 298 electoral votes, or 55% of all 538 electoral votes up for grabs. True, this is significantly closer than the 68% of the electoral votes that Barrack Obama actually won, but it's still slightly greater than his 53% of the popular vote. No built-in Republican advantage there.

HOWEVER, in 2004, George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts and 31 states, which would have given him 317 electoral votes -  59% of the total electoral votes, far greater than the 51% that he received in the popular vote. So there, Republicans really would have been advantaged beyond just the electoral college result being made to more closely reflect the popular vote.

This year's results by congressional district have yet to be released and I don't particularly feel like counting the results of each individual congressional district in the 2000 election to see who would have benefited more, so I'll just end by saying that while the Republicans would indeed be benefited by the adoption of the electoral-vote-by-congressional-district method, I'm still not entirely convinced of how huge that benefit would be.

Virginia would have been a 7-6 Romney split. Ohio would have been a 11-7 Romney split. Michigan looks like an 8-8 split.

Obama might well have lost this year under that system.

[Fritz]

As I recall, there was an actual movement to do this this year, in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, neither of which happened.

[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.

[pbrower2a]

Is he willing to risk the state's Reactionary majority in Congress? He would have to arrange to redistrict the stat so that Democrats would have a more even chance. The Obama DOJ would  demand a reapportionment of House seats in Ohio first. Not worth the risk, I presume.

With a Machiavellian type one can always expect the leader and his lieutenants to go by the rules then most convenient and then change the rules to fit their desires.  

Want to split the votes fairly? Assign the electoral votes associated with Senate representation in accordance with the principle of winner-take-all. Then split the other electoral votes in proportion to the total valid votes (blank votes, votes for for fictional characters and persons ineligible for the Presidency such as Bill Clinton, Miguel Cabrera, or Brittney Spears would not count due to Constitutional disqualifications). Ignore third party and independent nominees unless they  win enough popular votes to have at least one share in the electoral college. Split the electoral votes associated with House seats proportionally to those remaining but give all fractions to the statewide winner.