Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Fox News:

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

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders also support it -- suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum.

There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.

"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

Democrats are outraged at the potential change.

Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney's 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It's unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.

While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he "could go either way" on the change and doesn't plan to push it. But he said it's a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.

"It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion," Snyder said.

Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.

"We never really pushed it before," he said, adding that the bill wasn't designed to help one party more than the other.

Democrats aren't convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift -- particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.

"This is nothing more than election-rigging," said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.

Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states -- Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina -- Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

________

 

I'm leery of this. What about a future Democratic president who could take advantage of such a change? The Electoral College is what it is. This sounds like sore loserman territory IMO.

[quantim]

Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states -- Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina -- Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

 

Is that not interesting? Except NC these were the 'swing states that were going to uninstall Obama, completely red at the state level.

 

Moochers want their states to do well, work hard so the productive class sends money to Obama so he can redistribute it.

 

That's the election right there, summarized in purple in only one sentence.

[Valin]

@WestVirginiaRebel @quantim

 

Being an evil right wing regressive (as opposed to progressive) Conservative, I must admit my 1st knee jerk reaction is to be against any changes in how we elect Presidents. The law of unintended consequences is always lurking in the shadows.

 

 

However one thing divided proportional votes would do is broaden the scope of the campaigns. In the last election and many before you will notice two things Democrats don't spend a lot of time and money on Texas, and Republicans don't spend a lot of time and money on California. Changing the way States apportion Electoral votes would change this.

[quantim]

@WestVirginiaRebel @quantim

 

Being an evil right wing regressive (as opposed to progressive) Conservative, I must admit my 1st knee jerk reaction is to be against any changes in how we elect Presidents. The law of unintended consequences is always lurking in the shadows.

 

 

However one thing divided proportional votes would do is broaden the scope of the campaigns. In the last election and many before you will notice two things Democrats don't spend a lot of time and money on Texas, and Republicans don't spend a lot of time and money on California. Changing the way States apportion Electoral votes would change this.

 

Exactly.

 

And the fool GOP needs to tighten up the primaries more than ANYTHING, not goof around with Iowa and New Hampshire like somehow those people there are smarter than the rest of flyover country.

 

And wind up the cycle much earlier so the GOP nominee has a chance, not pussyfoot around in 19 debates with libtard tools for moderators.

[Valin]

@WestVirginiaRebel @quantim

 

Being an evil right wing regressive (as opposed to progressive) Conservative, I must admit my 1st knee jerk reaction is to be against any changes in how we elect Presidents. The law of unintended consequences is always lurking in the shadows.

 

 

However one thing divided proportional votes would do is broaden the scope of the campaigns. In the last election and many before you will notice two things Democrats don't spend a lot of time and money on Texas, and Republicans don't spend a lot of time and money on California. Changing the way States apportion Electoral votes would change this.

 

Exactly.

 

And the fool GOP needs to tighten up the primaries more than ANYTHING,

 

I have always been as fan of closed primaries/caucuses

 

not goof around with Iowa and New Hampshire like somehow those people there are smarter than the rest of flyover country.

 

They may not be, but what they are is a small State. This forces the candidates to actually talk to real people.