SPEAK OUT: GOP in Some Swing States Seeking Electoral College Changes

Republicans want electoral votes allocated by congressional districts. Share your thoughts.

Updated 11:07 a.m., January 26

Republicans in Virginia and some other battleground states are seeking to change their Electoral College processes to counter recent victories by Democrats.

According to the Washington Post and other media outlets, the plan would allocate all but two electoral votes by congressional districts won, and the last two by statewide popular vote. In almost all states, including Georgia, the electoral vote is now apportioned solely by the statewide popular vote.

-- Do you favor the proposed changes in Virginia and other states? Share your comments below.

Under the new plan, President Obama would have won just four of Virginia's 13 electoral votes in the past election, rather than all of them.

And according to the Huffington Post, had the 2012 election been apportioned in every state according to these new Republican plans, Mitt Romney would have led Obama by at least 11 electoral votes.

The other states pondering such changes are Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Like Virginia, their electoral votes went to Obama in 2012, although the states are controlled by Republicans at the state level.

However, Virginia is moving the fastest, the Washington Post reported. The state Senate could vote as soon as next week. If the legislation passes, Virginia would become the third state to adopt such a system, after Nebraska and Maine.

Also, Virginia proposes to allocate its two remaining votes not to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote, but to the candidate who wins the majority of congressional districts.

mike gardiner January 26, 2013 at 03:02 PM
One man one vote. Under the Republican scheme that would not be the case. Therefore, only Republicans should serve in the military and risk their fat heads because they do not even support a Democracy.
Paul Aloe January 26, 2013 at 03:02 PM
Getting rid of winner take all is a good thing,but the electoral votes should be apportioned in a accordance with the total vote for the state. That way, within a state, every vote has the same weight -- one man (or woman) one vote. Having winner take all by congressional district continues to weigh votes differently and is an obvious ploy since the Republicans won a majority of the congressional districts but not a majority of the votes. Every vote for president should count the same no matter what congressional district..
mike gardiner January 26, 2013 at 03:03 PM
One man, one vote you pin head. This Republican scheme is not even Democracy. You people are pure dumbness.
Dan Miller January 26, 2013 at 03:07 PM
How PATRIOTIC??? The GOP talks about being more patriotic and holier than thou, especially more than ANY "evil" Democrat. Yet, they avoid going to war (ie, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc.) I guess that's why they can steal elections with NO remorse. They don't seem to understand or care that many American soldiers have died for the freedom of the American people to vote and every vote should count. Want to see the real GOP! Google Phil Gramm and derivatives. Anyone that voted for Mitt and the GOP should know that DEREGULATION (which Mitt said he would wanted to do again) caused the financial crisis and the housing meltdown. Also, Google Bohemian Club and find out that every GOP president since Calvin Coolidge has been a member of the Bohemian Club. Guess Mitt wasn't a member?? The only elections Republicans can win are either stolen or bought i.e the 2010 elections. Thanks to the GOP SCOTUS!
Bruno Mazzotte January 26, 2013 at 03:07 PM
what next? the counting of ballots in some backroom attended by only Republicans.
John Smith January 26, 2013 at 03:09 PM
GOP gone wild. No GOP gone crazy
Matt January 26, 2013 at 03:14 PM
Uh, the people of Virginia must want this right? It won't pass unless the people want it right? Seems like the Dems are a little worried that the "handout" vote will lose its power.
Mark L January 26, 2013 at 03:17 PM
I don't remember any Republican wanting to change the Electoral College after George Bush was elevated to the President's office despite losing the popular vote. "At least the worked out really really well", said no America ever
Robert January 26, 2013 at 03:18 PM
After all their attempts at voter suppression these losers want to rig the next election by changing the rules. Florida was one state they wanted to do this but after all their attempts at voter suppression in the last election and the ensuing uproar they didn't dare. They brought in a voter registration group that they had to kick out after it was found out that any Democrats they registered the trashed the registrations. Then our governor came up with a list of people that he claimed weren't legal to vote and should be removed from voter roles and all the people were found to be legally registered. Not satisfied he cut back on early times forcing 8-10 hour waits for voting. The crooked Tea Party Governor knows he is in big trouble along with other Republicans in 2014 since he has yet to get his approval rating above 30%. It now appears that Virginia also won't vote for the change. If the other states vote for it, I know that they will face severe repercussions like a national boycott and the Democrats can insure that these states don't get federal contracts. I don't think they are going to dare since they sure will get hit on "family values" , if you can't win a game legally then you change the rules. As it stands the Republican Party is looking pretty bad for even considering this.
Mr Q Farm January 26, 2013 at 03:23 PM
Until we do away with the Electoral college our votes do not count.We can vote for whom we want but they have the last say.
Ester Anderson January 26, 2013 at 03:27 PM
The Republican party can't win without changing the rules to suit themselves, the American people spoke up this past election even after the GOP tried to suppress the vote, they can't win any other way, people are not stupid and will see through this tactic, and they'll lose again, so good luck with that fellas
Matt January 26, 2013 at 03:27 PM
Until the Democrats stop pandering to the government dependent voters, they will be considered an inferior party. The democrats continually run on what they can "give away" to the people in order to get votes. The dems have forgotten how to actually run a country. Look no further than California.
Jade f. January 26, 2013 at 03:28 PM
I support changes because my republican vote means nothing in the communist state of California.
gonzha esp January 26, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Instead of trying to change the system to favor the republicans the republicans should change their core views to favor the people. Do we need to go to war within our selves to promote the same democracy we ask the rest of the world. Republicans are pursueing a democrazy.
Jim Kelley January 26, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Can't win the game change the rules,Might as well take your ball and go home.
james william mayor January 26, 2013 at 03:32 PM
The electorial college is an antiquated hold over from the past when travel distances were a problem with quickly electing a President. It should be abolished and something else done if required or go with the popular vote.
Derek January 26, 2013 at 03:33 PM
Winner take all is not fair and square, nor is it a democracy (by the definition of democracy). Neither is the electoral college as long as there are districts with disproportionate electoral college votes to individual citizen votes. Anybody that thinks their party is always right (democrat or republican) is a mindless sheep with no self thought. If you compare the net worth of a congressman or senator prior to serving versus after serving, the growth of wealth far exceeds their income. This is true of both parties elected official and clearly show the blatant corruption that nobody even tries to hide anymore. Either way, the electoral college, no matter how the votes are dispersed is a tool of manipulation to prevent a true democracy, and if you believe your party is not trying to manipulate you for the sake of money, you are the idiot. In a day and age of electronic feedback, there is no reason to not allow a true popular vote to prevail and in this year’s election, Obama would have still been our president.
tony January 26, 2013 at 03:33 PM
At some point the Republican (of which I am one) must find a way to appeal to the majority of the people. The reality is we have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections, and the one that we won was by one of the closest margins in history. In this last election, we lost the popular vote for the House, the Senate and The White House. If we do not find a way to reach blacks, latinos,asians, single women,gays, city dwellers, surburbanites (as you can see we have a lot of work in front of us)...we are headed the way of the Whigs. My fellow Republicans, it is time to reject the easy way out, and stop trying to subvert the will of the people.
tony January 26, 2013 at 03:34 PM
At some point the Republicans* (of which I am one) must find a way to appeal to the majority of the people. The reality is we have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections, and the one that we won was by one of the closest margins in history. In this last election, we lost the popular vote for the House, the Senate and The White House. If we do not find a way to reach blacks, latinos,asians, single women,gays, city dwellers, surburbanites (as you can see we have a lot of work in front of us)...we are headed the way of the Whigs. My fellow Republicans, it is time to reject the easy way out, and stop trying to subvert the will of the people.
Samuel Jay Davis III January 26, 2013 at 03:34 PM
This article just proves how ill-informed many Progressives are. They don't realize why the Electoral College was established to begin with. It stops candidates from campaigning exclusively in the 6-7 states with the heaviest population. It stops candidates from completely ignoring the citizens in the remaining states, not just as voters, but as recipients of attention, funding, projects, etc... It was a brilliant concept by our Founding Fathers. Additionally, the beauty is that every state has the right to apportion Electoral votes in any fashion their constitution prescribes. It varies now in many states. Not all states are "winner take all". The comment above about being taken hostage by the largest metropolitan areas is very valid. Look at Florida in 2012, Obama won Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Orange counties to carry the state, while Romney won far more counties. So, how "Fair" is it to have your state's governance decided by 5 or so largest counties? Again, this will hopefully make candidates carefully consider their strategies in each area of the country. I fear most from those on the Left that any debate will continue to be stiffled, or we'll labeled haters or racists or any number of such divisive terms. If you disagree with them, you are signaled as less of a person than them, and clearly not as enlightened.
Matt January 26, 2013 at 03:34 PM
I'm guessing that all of the libs that want the one man one vote thing are also OK with the the same sex marriage votes? It loses every time it's brought to ballot and yet they still push to get it passed via the courts.
Jade f. January 26, 2013 at 03:36 PM
The electoral college is a terrible system for both sides because there will always be someone's vote that will not count. It's not "changing the rules so we can win" is making it so more people's votes are counted and can make a difference. I know some people who didn't even vote because their state was largely controlled by democrats and they said "why bother, my vote won't get counted anyway." because they were republican. This is a terrible system we have. Everyone's vote should count.
Samuel Jay Davis III January 26, 2013 at 03:44 PM
You are clearly making the point why apportionment of Electoral Votes should happen. Why should any citizen, county or state be penalized or ignored in the scenario of "federal contracts" or dozens of other areas just as you pointed out. Politicians wield their power to garner more power. There's nothing wrong with discussion. Stop looking at any changes that don't benefit your party as nothing more than stealing or sore losers. What do you say about the states whom DO NOT have winner take all Electoral policies before this article?
rational January 26, 2013 at 03:48 PM
The President did win the popular vote. And the electoral colleg e. More than 80% of Americans live in areas defined as urban, so this is not even an issue of city versus country folk. The only reason republicans have so many representatives now, it the gerrymandering they accomplished back in the 80's and 90's when Newt Gingrich seriously proposed a permanant majority for republicans.
ponddogtoo January 26, 2013 at 03:48 PM
My state is small. It has one particularly large city. That city is very liberal and through design has brought more of its kind there to contol. There are so many parts of our state that are bedrock conservative but these voters have no way of having their vote count on a national level. In all of my years here, my one vote counts for nothing in this state where the winner takes all and it never will. The only way for me to have a real voice is a change in the system. Problem is the only way on a state level to provide such fairness is to have a legislature that is dedicated to fairness for all and that is not the case in my state. If we could go to a national popular vote system, it would be better than what we will be facing in the future elections of this nation. It won't be long before the only vote that counts will be those from the major population centers. Do you really want to be governed by big city liberals whose base are people who want government to take care of them at someone elses expense? I think not!
ponddogtoo January 26, 2013 at 03:51 PM
And to Mike Gardner. Name calling is about the only way that a Liberal can justify his or her position. Why not try to discussing instead of being disgusting.
Samuel Jay Davis III January 26, 2013 at 03:54 PM
I'm happy you said "appeal" and not "change" to garner more people's support. This is the key issue. It is not that their policies or views are that out of touch, it is the fact that they do a hideously poor job of explaining their views and educating voters. They run against their opponent and not against their opponents policies or beliefs and how those may negatively affect the country. What's wrong with smaller govt.? What's wrong with lower taxes? What's wrong with stopping illegal immigration? What's wrong with support same sex marriage? If candidates were able to truly speak about their views on these issues, and do so credibly, maybe people would listen. Next, the media clearly drowns out those whom speak against their own Progressive agenda. Thus there are far fewer channels or outlets promoting legitimate exchange of ideas, deeper discussions that stay out of name calling. There are clearly answers to the issues raised above, but, simply dropping your ideals to get elected means you stand for nothing more than getting elected and thus have no business being elected. BTW, show me in the Constitution where it says you even have a right to vote in the Presidential election?
Steve Burns (Editor) January 26, 2013 at 04:10 PM
To everyone: We love comments on this and all articles, but a reminder of our Terms Of Use. This includes respecting other commenters. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. http://suwanee.patch.com/terms
ponddogtoo January 26, 2013 at 04:18 PM
I agree so much with Matt. I tried to reply to him but the system did not let me. So I will do it here. ! I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said words to this effect: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. And for that government to get big it has to make big promises. Promises that will prove to be impossible to keep. They will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. As long as there are enough Peters that will work but eventually Peter will get fed up and will quit, get sick of it or die. Of course the liberals will always have the support of Paul but what will happen when there is nothing left but all Pauls? We need to think about who are our leaders and how they are perpetuating their power and we need to do it now before it is too late for our nation.
commen sense January 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM
Wow they didn't say that when bush stole Florida elections.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »