GOP eyes changes to Electoral College
BOSTON (AP) - After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials 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 support it, too, 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.
Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.
"This is a concept that's got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential," said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would "incite different levels of partisan acrimony." Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.
In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state's 20 votes.
Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.
"It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."
Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor's spokesman Kevin Harley said.
In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an "interesting idea" but that it's not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.
It's gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.
"I am open to that idea," Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. "But I would have to hear all the arguments."
All 10 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.
Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: "We can't sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage," Barrett wrote. "We can't let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain - just because they don't believe they can win in a fair election fight."
So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.
"The Electoral College has served the country quite well," said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.
He continued: "This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I'm worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn't mean we can't talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take."
From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials 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 support it, too, 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.
Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.
"This is a concept that's got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential," said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would "incite different levels of partisan acrimony." Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.
In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state's 20 votes.
Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.
"It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."
Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor's spokesman Kevin Harley said.
In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an "interesting idea" but that it's not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.
It's gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.
"I am open to that idea," Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. "But I would have to hear all the arguments."
All 10 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.
Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: "We can't sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage," Barrett wrote. "We can't let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain - just because they don't believe they can win in a fair election fight."
So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.
"The Electoral College has served the country quite well," said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.
He continued: "This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I'm worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn't mean we can't talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take."
Our states should represent their own voters.  If 100% of their state votes for a candidate - then certainly all the electoral votes should go to that person.
Â
But if it is not 100%, then they should follow the lead of a couple states that have always set the votes proportionately. Â Representation is fair. Â Representation is honest. Â Representation is America.
One of these years they may realize that by running with someone more middle of the road instead of on the extreme right they will have a much better chance. Listen to the majority of the people instead of the minority extremists. By doing so they won't have to keep trying "alternate" methods.
But since they ALSO lost the popular vote in the past two elections why do think chaning it to proportional will make any difference?Â
Â
Also, they were completely AGAINST changing the Electoral College's role when they were winning elections - but now that they aare consistantly losing they want to change the rules.Â
Â
Sounds like sour beans to me on their part - they can't win fair & square, so they want to change the rules to hopefully be in their favor.
For some states like CA this wouldn't be a bad idea. Northern CA and Southern CA vote very differently. I don't think that all the electoral votes should go to just one candidate. I think it should be split. For the record I am neither republican or democrat.Â
If the voters are rejecting your ideas because your ideas only benefit a small number of Americans, rig the election!
If Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus wants a better venue for the GOP to win, the first step would be for Reince Priebus to resign. Here is another idea GOP, stop trying to prevent people from voting, just made more democrats come out and vote.
The GOP might want to stick to the issues instead of attacking womens rights and lumping 47% of the voters in the pool of welfare takers and lazy americans.
So now instead of fixing thier stupidy, the GOP now wants to change the voting process in thier favor.
Bush would have never been president without the electoral college and Obama won the popular vote in both elections-so what is the GOP thinking here, their not. What is new?
The first sentence says it all. Redrawing congressional districts in their favor was only the start.
If they are going to do it this way, they have to do it in all states or none/next to none, otherwise it's an unbalanced system that would be badly broken.
Â
OR, here's a thought, the winner is the winner of the POPULAR VOTE. What a concept huh? The winner ACTUALLY being chosen BY THE POPULOUS?
This makes sense, divide up the electoral college votes. I really hope they suceed in doing that. Once the states with the most electoral votes have been won it seems like the rest of the states might as well have stayed home from the polls. Since it's pretty obvious for the most part which states are going to go which direction long before the election this would at least level the playing field.
Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers all have new goals. Lobby, lobby, and give money in that order.
Its funny how the republicans were for the electoral college when George Bush won the presidency even though Al Gore had a higher popular vote. Personally, I'd like to see the electoral college done away with. Not because I'm a Dem or Rep (which I am neither), but because it should be based on the popular vote. Its really not fair that the candidates focus 90% of their efforts on a handful of swing states. Also, I wonder how expensive it is to transport, feed, and take care of all the delegates. Plus, delegates can be bought off. The other thing is that each state handles it differently. In some, 100% go to one candidate, in others, the delegates (votes) get divided by the ratio of the popular vote.
funny pic of ol' Reince... that was taken when Romney was winning by a landslide...
@tufa23 and Sarah Palin was under his podium....
1. Gerrymadering -- Doh!  didn't work out so well.
2. Voter suppresion -- Dang! just off the bullseye.
3.. Manipulate the electoral college... Bingo!
@tufa23 Don't forgot owning the voting machines and all the irregularities that went with that!
Naturally the GOP would head in this direction. They FLA legislature saw how reducing early voting did not win FLA for Romney.  The Electoral College like the 2nd Amendment is not perfect, but it has been serving us better than the alternatives suggested for a good little while.
Do away with the Electoral College , I cant believe we still have this exist in a day where information is easily obtained. "Most" people are intelligent enough to make their own voting decision .. The Electoral College? Basically they are saying they know whats better for you than you do, and their vote is worth more than yours..
Evil is too tame a word for these despicable excuses for human beings. When they dont like certain things its allllllllllllllllllllllllllll about the founding fathers. But when they want something to go their way, the founding fathers be damned.
Their base is a few rich guys, they have no choice but to seek out the crazies for votes. They lie to said crazies, the end is near, the sky is falling, your guns will be taken away, etc....
The groups the Republicans pander to turns off too many people for them to ever win a national election again.
They want to change the electoral college in a manner that will allow them to circumvent the popular vote. That's the bottom line. I have no problem with eliminating the college altogether, but to tweak it in order to cheat the public is despicable. But that's their character, they know no other way. Whether it's messing with districts in Texas or elsewhere, it's all about disenfranchising voters who do not want them in office.
Now there's an idea. If you allowed the members of electoral college to have two votes if they are casting a vote for a Republican, you might win an election now and again.
Â
Better still though, I have a suggestion for you, why don't you change your rhetoric , stop wringing your hand over America's upper crust and legislate for the majority of middle class American voters, including that 47% you completely disenfranchised last year. We may not be able to fly you to exotic places in our private jets for an expense free getaway,,but we do have the numbers.
The republicans have a real possibility to get back into politics now if they decide to serve the public. Repeal the electoral college and start being conservative again and fight for people's civil rights. Would be nice to see them moving back to being conservatives. Ever since Reagan the party has been dieing.
 @Blindman If it changed it was before Reagan took office. You aren't one of those who have a rosy rear view mirror view of him are you? What sticks in my mind is losing our bargaining position with employers as illegal immigrants competed for our jobs. Remember the amnesty move? Something that has been glued to "Liberals". We knew him as the guy who lied about just about everything in order to get elected, screwed us out of our jobs, and then gave us Ronnie cheese. He was a mentally defective creep who acted like a nice guy. He was a traitor to the working class, because he wasn't a member of the working class any longer. He sold out to the rich and played polo. He was a union buster. He should be dug up and hung from the Washington Monument.
 @uscit16791949:Â
I have family in California, and when he was Governor there, he famously stated "tax the people until it hurts". And he put deeds to words.
It's also interesting that he was the first governor to decriminalize abortion way back in 1967. A fact the GOP would dearly love all to forget.
No matter how they try....the Repubs still would loss if they're not
gonna change their attitude and do something constructively !
 @scychan Do you mean act like they've changed their attitude? That's all you're going to get, an illusion.
 @uscit16791949  @scychan Illusions aren't limited to the Republican party.  I'm pretty sure there's a class all politicians must take in this discipline.
The electoral college is BROKEN. The EC no longer represents the "people".
They might do better by looking at their own party and ridiculous candidates they keep settling on instead of trying to figure out how to make mediocrity work.
The GOP better be careful, G.W. would have been creamed by Gore if these rules would have been in place.
Let every vote count. Eliminate the electoral college. Simple as that.
Only one problem, candidates wouldn't give a crap about entire states with small populations under that approach. Why spend campaign $$ in NH when one stop in Ohio gets just as much exposure. The electoral college provides little podunk states with a voice.
The last time I checked they needed to address problems like the debt ceiling. No wonder they're in disarray.
Better be careful what you wish for. Bush 43 probably never would have got elected by the Supreme Court if these rules were in place. They don't want these rule changes in ALL states, just certain ones. I wonder why. How about giving us some better candidates to choose from. Eh?
 @Hagar When I was a young all the kids of different ages played together. If one side won we changed the rules until the other side won. Tommy got 4 strikes, the ball was always in play even if the dog had it, etc. Things haven't changed. The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers and to the durability of the American federal system.
Maybe they should run a someone on their ticket that people might want to elect.........................lol
Of course when all else fails try to change the rules...............so GOP
How about we just set term limits on congress. Some new ideas are needed to get our government back on track. The status quo in congress is not helping anyone but themselves.
Â
http://wh.gov/EFhm
So does that mean in Washington votes outside of King County would start to count?
 @4ShotLatte They would still be in the minority. In case you haven't noticed there are more people in King County, than say Spokane County. The vote isn't, and shouldn't be decided by the amount of scrub land that surrounds you or the acreage of wheat that you own. One voter, one vote. Of course that means the Republicans will lose more often than not.
 @uscit16791949 That may be true. Eastern Washington's votes will never outweigh Seattle's. If the electoral were split by district at least their vote would count for something.
 @4ShotLatte  @uscit16791949 News Flash: Your vote counts just as much as anybody else voting in this state. No more, no less. Â
I know of many people who do not vote, just because they feel the Electoral College will negate their votes, anyhow.
@Bornhere More than likely they're just too lazy to vote.
Get rid of the Electoral College.
Have they considered the tactic of just trying to not act insane?
 @T H I S No kidding.  If they could have put up a moderate, normal person as a candidate, he or she would have likely won.  I know I certainly would have changed my vote.  Instead they are pandering to the crazies on the extreme right.  Hey Republicans, most of the country sits in the middle of the spectrum since you haven't figured that out on your own.
 @T H I S
 It's not an act.
The States should let the people decide whether they want to change the electoral vote system. Problem with the whole political system is, that the politicians do what's best for their party and their re-election, not their constituents.
@Alert Eagle Including passing laws and dealing with the budget problems.
@mstipton Budget problem? There hasn't been a budget passed in 4 years, no budget...no problem.