Popular vote, but of course they don't want that

They were trying to do something similar, or talk about it in California

Bullshit. They are trying to fix the election in their favor, not make it fair

since they haven't been a GOP state but are currently GOP dominated. But Ohio, and to take another example NC are not going to the congressional district method anytime soon since that would be more likely to hurt the GOP than help.

with 270 electoral votes.

i don't want that plan.

i want the Electoral College repealed. all the half-measures are fraught with risks that many people are not appreciating:

1) states might not vote as they say they will (faithless electors is a huge possibility)
2) states might vote differently because their legislature changes its mind
3) the whole way the election is to be decided is completely up in the air under the half-measures approach, maybe it will be by electoral college votes, the usual way, or maybe it will be by popular vote, or maybe some states will vote based on nationwide popular vote while other states do it the old way.

if we think our system is f-ed up now, try one of these Electoral Hybrid measures and see how badly it could really go!

Amend the constitution (yes, it's damned hard, maybe impossible) to put in Popular voting for president and accept nothing less.

but he isn't. Husted could only do this in OH and no, that wouldn't have given Romney the election. I didn't think I had to do that math, but evidently I do. Obama got 332 EV and Ohio has 18. 332 - 15 (the absolute most Romney could have gotten since Obama got the majority of the votes 2 EV for getting the majority plus the one district he had to win to get that majority) means Obama would have 317 EV which is more than 270. The fact is big one party states won't do this unless they are locally ruled by the other party. The only state currently in this spot is PA and thus the only one we should worry about.

No heart attacks please!

there are a bunch of people here who are ready to latch onto Husted's idea.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/09/1169761/ohios-gop-secretary-of-state-already-has-a-plan-to-rig-the-2016-election-for-republicans/

which they presumedly are not. Oh, and we could have done the same to them in Arkansas (change it to proportional and good bye tie). We also could have done it in West Virginia. CD would have won us 1 or poportional would have won us 2 and again good bye tie. The fact is the GOP won't change Florida, won't change Virginia, and won't change Ohio since they are dependent on those states. Had they done that to even one of those states, let alone all three, and Bush would have lost 2000, and yes, they can read a map.

let's agree on that.

you act like you're talking about rational folks.

maybe not as much as you think.

The fact is Obama won by more than any of those states individually. In addition FL, VA, and OH have all been the one state by which a recent GOP President won by. Had any of those states been done that way in 2000, then Bush would have lost. Had Florida been that way in 2004 Bush would have lost that one too. Had OH and VA been that way in 2004 then Bush would have lost. Oh, and BTW, their numbers might not even be correct. I checked the Ohio numbers and it linked to the NYT House results page. Yes we won only 4 seats in Ohio but there were two strange races. One was incumbent on incumbent and very close. It is quite possible that Obama won that district even as Sutton lost it. the other race he might have won even as our Congressional candidate went down was LaTourette's district where we ran some dude against their hand picked successor. It was a far less safe district than most others and Obama almost certainly outperformed Blanchard. I checked and Blanchard lost 39 to 54. Sutton lost 48 to 52.

I doubt it. I don't think any of Ohio is covered under the voting rights act.

That right is delegated to them by the Constitution.

a number of high EV states try to do this, such as FL, OH & PA. It will all depend on who controls the legislature and state house, and how committed they are.

With only a couple of low EV states doing it now, it isn't a player.

Florida was the closest state this time and the GOP won it (and needed it) in both 2000 and 2004. And even if the Democrats somehow took over I can't see us being sure enough of losing it that we would change it. I do see PA maybe doing it but even then there are downsides for some of the GOP members in closer seats (the Dem nominee would have incentive to target those districts).

is because, as a state, it's turning reliably blue. However, there are big swaths of red as well. From an electoral perspective, 29 is great, but 15 is better than nothing.

Stole it? Why yes, yes they did.

it would be a step toward popular vote.

It gives a much more accurate picture of how a state voted, and it gives a voice to people of both parties that live in states that are either dark blue or dark red.

I also think it would be a postive for voter turnout.

Half the states have 3,4,5 or 6 ev. In a 3 vote state it would take at least a 68 to 32 win to get any split better than 2 to 1. In a 4 EV state it would take around a 75 to 25 win to budge from 2/2 distribution. Even if you assume you are going to round you still need 62.5 to 37.5 which is a 25 point win. In a 5 vote state to win one vote you need to get to around 60% (a 3/2) split with over 70% needed for a 4/1 split. Even in a 6 EV state each EV is 16%.

NE has 5 EVs - Romney won them all, popular vote was 50.6% to 37.8%.
ME has 4 EVs - Obama won them all, popular vote was 56% to 40.9%.

In NE Obama would have gotten 2 EV and Romney 3EV under a strict proportional vote and he would have needed to get somewhere north of 69% to earn that 4th EV. In ME, Obama would have likely gotten a 3/1 split but could have wound up 2/2 depending on what one meant by proportional.

NE and ME go by Congressional district, with state popular vote winner taking the two Senatorial EVs.

That's the method I would like to see.

it is in a place like Iowa where districts are drawn with no regard to party, but in the vast majority of states, districts are drawn with regard to party and thus splitting by EV isn't at all the same as splitting by proportion of the popular vote. In my state, to take one really egregious example, we lost the popular vote 51 to 49. We actually won the US House vote, but have a 4 to 9 split in favor of the GOP meaning we would have been divided by 4 to 11 in the EV under Husted's system but 7 to 8 under proportional. Admittedly we would have gained since we got 0 EV but I still think it is a dumb system.

Frankly that isn't what proportional means mathematically. They divide them up by district. Proportional voting means the more vote you get the more seats (or ev) you get regardless of where the vote is. That isn't what ME and NE do, and I don't care who wants to say differently.

since it will hurt his party more than ours. It would have cost them the 2000 election and but the 2004 election in jeopardy.

In NE Obama would have gotten 2 EV and Romney 3EV under a strict proportional vote and he would have needed to get somewhere north of 69% to earn that 4th EV. In ME, Obama would have likely gotten a 3/1 split but could have wound up 2/2 depending on what one meant by proportional.

Nebraska has five electoral votes, 3 Congressional districts, plus 2 Senate. Whoever wins the Congressional, automatically wins the Senate. The winner cannot have less than 4 electoral votes.

One I agree, and directly stated that NE isn't a proportional state, we have no such states. Two, it is possible, though rather unlikely, for a person to get 3EV while winning the popular vote in the state. Candidate A can win districts 1 and 2 by 100 votes each and lose district 3 by say 1000 votes. Candidate A would get the 2 EV for districts 1 and 2 while B would get the vote for district 3 and the 2EV for winning the total. Admittedly it would likely be impossible for that to happen with the current partisan make up of NE.

and now it seems like you're wrong.

The facist's vision of the future

These rightous assholes always want to bring up "our forefathers" while they take a wrecking ball to long established precedent.

Splitting electoral votes, gerrymandering congressional districts, voter suppression, filibuster abuse, petitioning to leave the Union.

They can take that "what our forefathers intended" and shove it right up their Teabillie asses.

Fuck those sore losers. They are the minority and they need to take some serious mandate asskicking about now.

As for gerrymandering, that's a long standing tradition in both parties.

Sorry, I don't know how to do links, but I think is should be shared, so the average person understands, how our electoral process has been compromised.

If that were implemented across the country. And the Dems would always lose the 100 EVs reflecting the Senate allocation since the repukes win the greater number of states.
If the EC is replaced, the popular vote is the fairest way.