Will the GOP rig the electoral college?

[BigSkyBob]

Color me disappointed that some of our Republican friends think this is awesome.

Guys: NE and ME don't matter because they are small, homogeneous states where it makes no difference for the outcome. Introducing this ONLY in states with narrow Dem majorities for president, but Republican legislatures, rigs the system. If you want to do this, do it nationwide, so the votes of Dems in Texas and Mississippi count, too. But since that will never happen, this takes our system even further away from Democracy. And for damn sure an election in PA where Obama wins a solid majority of the voter but a minority of the EV because he lost most districts violates one man, one vote.

First, the electoral college awards each state 2 votes for being states. OMOV simply isn't an issue. If you want to make it an issue, amend the Constitution. Under the current system, the outcome of a state's delegation is totally independent to the outcome in any other state. Under winner-by-congressional-district the outcome in a Congressional district is totally independent to the outcome of any other Congressional district, including the other Congressional districts in that state. The Constitution allows for the possibility of losing the popular vote but winning the election. If that is acceptable between states, it presumably would be acceptable within a state.

[BigSkyBob]

The GOP plan could backfire down the road in those midwestern states.

Presumably, they could change the rules back to the winner-take-all system if it did.

Winner-by-Congressional district is a system I could accept in all fifty states.

[CountryRoads]

It's only rigging if Democrats aren't doing it.

[Miles]

The GOP plan could backfire down the road in those midwestern states.

Presumably, they could change the rules back to the winner-take-all system if it did.

Winner-by-Congressional district is a system I could accept in all fifty states.

Hmmm...I wonder if you'd still be saying that if Democrats had drawn the majority of Congressional districts...

[Devils30]

The electoral college is of course undemocratic in that it allows small states to have a bigger impact. However, there is little precedent of someone winning 13 of 20 ev like what the Pennsylvania plan would have done while losing the statewide vote. Allowing each state to have disproportionate weight is one thing but allowing a candidate who loses a state to win an overwhelming majority of ev is ripe for an equal protection challenge.

[BigSkyBob]

The GOP plan could backfire down the road in those midwestern states.

Presumably, they could change the rules back to the winner-take-all system if it did.

Winner-by-Congressional district is a system I could accept in all fifty states.

Hmmm...I wonder if you'd still be saying that if Democrats had drawn the majority of Congressional districts...

Yes. Winner-by-district is a legitimate choice.  My perference is that it be uniform. Either Nebraska and Maine repeal, or it be expanded to all fifty states.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

How ironic that the only party to date that has actually benefited from proportional allocation is now condemning it as "rigging the electoral college".

Not that I favor proportional allocation myself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How ironic that the only party to date that has actually benefited from proportional allocation is now condemning it as "rigging the electoral college".

Not that I favor proportional allocation myself.

You clearly don't know what "proportional" means.

[Likely Voter]

The fact that one of the major parties is contemplating manipulating the system only proves that the system is screwed up to begin with. This is like filibuster reform, you have to imagine if you want this to happen if the party you dont prefer was doing it. I think not.

Imagine what would happen in America if the a candidate wins the PV by 3-4% but still loses the EC. I think there would be serious chance of major civil unrest and riots. It could be seen as a coup.