Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Forty-eight states, plus the District of Columbia, use winner-take-all systems to distribute their electoral votes. In Nebraska and Maine, each district gets one vote and the statewide winner receives two at-large votes.
Archive Email Author

About Editor
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
OH, VA Eye Proposals for More
Proportional Split of Electoral Votes

Editor
Officials in Virginia and Ohio, once reliably red states that have gone for President Obama in the past two elections, have discussed the idea of apportioning their electoral votes by congressional district -- a system some say would more accurately reflect the will of the states’ voters but one that others dismiss as an unnecessary political ploy.

The talks come as demographic shifts have pushed the GOP’s reliable bastions to more exurban and rural areas, allowing Democrats to win such states by sufficiently running up their margins in a comparatively small number of densely-populated cities and counties.

To that end, Virginia state Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr., Grayson Republican, has introduced a bill that would award one electoral vote to the winner of each of the state’s 11 congressional districts, and the state’s two at-large votes to the candidate that wins the majority of the districts.

Mr. Carrico cited the results in the southwestern 9th Congressional District -- where Mitt Romney won 63 percent of the vote -- as part of the reason he introduced the bill.

“People in my district -- they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don’t mean anything if they’re outvoted in metropolitan districts,” Mr. Carrico said. “It can go either way -- it doesn’t necessarily mean that one political party is going to be favored over another. When they come out to vote, they know their vote counts instead of a winner-take-all. I’d love to see other states to do this because I don’t feel the Electoral College right now is a fair system.”

To Mr. Carrico’s point, Mr. Obama won a slightly higher percentage of Virginia’s vote in 2008 than President George W. Bush did in 2000 -- 52.62 percent to 52.47 percent -- but won just 48 of the state’s 134 localities, compared to Mr. Bush’s 104. He won even fewer this year -- 46 -- but still carried the state with 51 percent of the vote.

Under Mr. Carrico’s proposal, Mitt Romney would have won nine electoral votes to Mr. Obama’s four, as Democrats are largely clustered in the state’s population hubs of Northern Virginia, Richmond and Hampton Roads. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 had been the last Democratic presidential candidate to win Virginia before Mr. Obama broke through in 2008.

Forty-eight states, plus the District of Columbia, use winner-take-all systems to distribute their electoral votes. In Nebraska and Maine, each district gets one vote and the statewide winner receives two at-large votes. In 2008, Mr. Obama actually benefited from the quirk, picking up an extra vote by winning Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District by 3,000 votes -- marking the only time in history that either of the two states have not awarded all their votes to one candidate.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 12/08/2012

Editor's Note: Messing with the Electoral College for political purposes is a very dangerous thing to do. Progressives are already attempting to circumvent this check and balance created by the Framers. Read more about that here.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server