Democracy dependent on one guy's opinion

Charles Blow, of the New York Times Opinion Pages, reviews the proposal of the GOP to divide up the Elector College votes according to congressional districts. He discusses how the proposal would work, and how it would have worked against Obama had it been in place this year. The idea has come up before, but since the GOP was convinced Romney was going to win, they didn't want to hurt his chances. Blow also notes the lame excuses the GOP is using. One of them is from Charles Carrico, the guy who introduced a similar bill in Virginia. He wants to

give smaller communities a bigger voice. The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them.

David Weigel of Slate translates: "Make the rural vote matter more and make the metro vote count less." And we know where the GOP power base is. At least in Virginia, the head of the state senate Elections Committee thinks it's a "bad idea" and unlikely to allow the bill to come up in committee. Are we to the point where democracy is dependent on a committee chair thinking something is a bad idea?

The rural communities may complain about not having a voice that can be heard over the urban throngs (though this may be a case of the GOP putting words in their mouths), but the cities, being wealthier, also pay more taxes.

One commenter wrote: Obama got 62% of the Electoral College and only 51% of the popular vote. How is that fair?

My response is: Under the proposed system, Obama beat Romney in Michigan by 450K votes. How is giving Romney 9 and Obama 7 fair? If Electoral College votes were proportional to the statewide vote (and done that way for all states) I would see the fairness.

A sidebar shows the GOP is considering this for Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The district tally for Pennsylvania is not available. But of the other four states, if the idea was in effect this past election Obama would have gotten 16 of 49 Electoral College votes even though he carried each state by at least 140K votes and sometimes 3 times that margin.

I remember Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli because of his anti-gay actions, though I like what he says about this Electoral College scheme.

I don't like breaking up states. I think winner-take-all is part of how a state matters. Our side would have gotten more votes this go-around but you know I want people to want to fight to win the whole state. It makes the state as a state matter more. It's one more thing that whittles down the role of states independently of the people who live in them. We need to build them up and not to Balkanize America. It's the states that created the federal government and not the other way around.

Alas, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is playing coy.

Fortunately, several other GOP leaders, such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, are calling this scheme a bad idea. So will this discourage state legislatures or provide cover?

As I mentioned above, the fair method would be to assign the Electoral College votes based on the proportion of the votes each candidate got in the state. Or do away with the Electoral College completely.

My brother wrote to me about an alternate method of choosing candidates (not for the Electoral College). All the candidates to the House from all parties would be voted on "at large" by everyone in the state. If the state is to send 14 representatives to the House, then the top 14 vote getters win. There is an interesting wrinkle: Once the votes are counted a candidate can give some or all of his or her votes to another. No hope of winning? Help a colleague clear the bottom rung as you drop out. Safely ahead? Share the wealth to help someone get a seat. The citizen would communicate with whichever representative best reflects the citizen's views.

I told my brother I like the idea. But on thinking about it I see it is possible for a candidate to be seated that very few citizens actually voted for.

Instead of the candidate trading votes I see another possibility. Allow the voter one ballot, but allow voting for as many candidates in a race as the voter finds acceptable.

If a third party candidate enters a race he is usually close to one party's position, drawing votes from that party. The candidate of the other major party usually wins, even though a majority of the voters disagree with his positions. That could be prevented if a citizen voted for all acceptable candidates. Like one candidate, tolerate another, and dislike a third? Then vote for the first two. The third would be less likely to get elected. I'll let my friend and debate partner check the math.