In the course of my “Imperfect Union” series, I spilled more than enough ink (or pixels, or whatever it is I’m spilling these days) on the vagaries and potential vagaries of the Electoral College system and its potential to award the presidency to the popular vote loser. (This has happened four time in U.S. history, most recently in 2000).
After losing two in a row, Republicans are going through some soul-searching about how to do better, but in case they can’t actually gain votes, they are hatching a plan to win future elections by changing the way the Electoral College system operates.
The Huffington Post has the details. The short version is this. A bill is advancing in the Virginia Legislature to change the way Virginia’s electoral votes are allocated. Under this bill, instead of awarding all its electoral votes to the ticket that got the most popular, Virginia would award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional districts and two more electoral votes to whichever ticket carried the most congressional districts. In 2012, Pres. Obama carried Virginia by 51-47 percent and thus received all 13 of the state’s electoral votes. If this new plan had been in effect in 2012, and the popular vote had been the same, the Romney ticket would nonetheless have received 10 of Virginia’s 13 E-College votes.
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus has endorsed the idea of Republicans adopting a similar plan wherever they have the legislative votes to do it. The Huff Post ran the nationwide numbers. If every state had the “Virginia Plan” in place last year, Romney would have won the election.
This would, by the way, be constitutional The Constitution leaves up to each state to decide how to allot its electoral votes.
Saturday morning update: I wasn’t aware on Friday when I wrote this post that similar moves are under way Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states (like Virginia) that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012 and all states with current Republican governors and Repub control of both houses of the Legislature. Also, Haley Barbour, a former RNC chair, came out against the idea.
I might also note for those who wonder about the constitutionality of such a system that a very similar system is already in place in Maine and Nebraska. Because of the small number of congressional districts in those two states, the wrinkle has never had much impact and, at least so far as I know, it was not adopted for reasons of partisan advantage, as would clearly be the case in the four states above.
(Hat tip: Ray Schoch.)
Constitutionality
I wouldn’t automatically assume the electoral vote changes are either legal or constitutional. You can gin up legal and constitutional arguments against or for just about anything. Nobody at the outset though there was any constitutional problem with Obamacare, yet opponents were able to craft constitutional arguments against that received the support of four Supreme Court justices.
Obamacare
Hiram, it’s simply not true that ‘nobody’ thought there were any constitutional problems with Obamacare. There were plenty of problems pointed out pretty early.
Constitutionality
In saying “nobody” I was engaging in a little message board hyperbole, of course; there is always someone out there who believes something. But in the case of Obamacare, it’s supposedly objectionable features were taken from Republican proposals and were enacted in Massachusetts, where any constitutional problems went undetected. There is no doubt in my mind, that had the same proposals been enacted under a Republican president, the Supreme Court would have decided the issue 9 to zero in it’s favor. And that’s assuming that the matter would have even gotten litigated which it probably wouldn’t have.
Sadly, Supreme Court litigation is no longer about the broad issues facing our country. Today, it’s about fashioning arguments that a minimum of 5 very out of touch, and very partisan individuals will buy.
Concentrate on Winning
Overall, this is a terrible move for the GOP to take. They’d be much better off if they figured out a way to win the swing states. All this does is signal that they favor power over an electoral mandate.
If A, then B. . .
The RNC and the Virginia Legislature dominated by it are perfectly “OK” with the undemocratic election of a President. In fact, the RNC and the RNC controlled Virginia legislature are really”OK” with any rule change that allows the RNC to win and whomever is against it to lose. Maybe we can make those changes retroactive whenever the RNC wishes to make it so.
Now, remind me, what was the problem with Communism again?
What Do They Call This Plan?
Voter ID, The Sequel?
The Virginia Governor has said he’s not interested in this. Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, the Republican Governors in Indiana and Michigan said they weren’t interested in Right To Freeload legislation. They were against it before they were in favor of it.
So when a Republican Governor says he’s of something that benefits the GOP, pardon me if I put no faith in his words.
If the GOP wants to show us the way on this, they can start with that red-est of states, Texas.
Yet Another Reason
For the whole system to be scrapped and a national popular vote be instituted.
At one point in my life I thought the E.C. had a place, but now when I see how easily it can be manipulated by state legislatures? Time to go.