Michigan would divide electoral votes in presidential elections under new Republican bill

[JonLP24]

LANSING, MI — Michigan would divide its electoral college votes in presidential elections rather than award them all to a single candidate under legislation being introduced Thursday in the state House.

Sponsoring Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, says the bill would make Michigan more important in presidential elections, but Democrats argue it would only benefit Republicans, who haven’t won a presidential election in Michigan since 1988.

“Michigan is a flyover state for presidential elections, which causes us to miss out on more than simply political ads,” Lund said in a statement.

“Candidates running for president currently don’t feel the need to come to Michigan in order to win. This proposal would make Michigan an important state for these candidates to visit, forcing them to speak on issues affecting our state, and more importantly, create policies that benefit all Michigan residents.”

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/11/electoral_votes_would_be_split.html

State Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, introduced a new bill Thursday to change the way Michigan's electoral college votes are allocated. Under the new bill, the presidential winner of the state's popular vote would get at least 9 of the state's 16 electoral votes. The winner would receive an additional electoral vote for every 1.5% above the 50% vote mark. For instance, if the winner got 51.5% of the statewide vote, they would get 10 of the state's 16 electoral votes. If they won 53% of the statewide vote they'd get 11 electoral votes.

The rest of the electoral votes would go to the second place finisher.

The new bill is markedly different than Lund's last bill that would have awarded the votes based on congressional district. If that scenario were in place in 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have gotten the majority of the state's electoral votes even though he lost badly to President Barack Obama in the state's popular vote.

Lund said he wants the bill in order to make Michigan more relevant in presidential election years. Because the state has voted reliably Democratic in the last several presidential election cycles, neither Romney nor Obama spent much time in the state during the last campaign season.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/13/michigan-bill-electoral-votes-president/18970077/

[djean111]

1. Can states do this individually?

[JonLP24]

3. Maine & Nebraska already does this

They divide by congressional districts.

I'm not up to speed but if the Michigan proposal is the same it will turn out bad if passed. Republicans have 9-5 advantage.

Even if it is 51% = 51% of the electoral votes, it will still probably ensure a Republican victory.

Also, cause for some concern here

Starting in January, Republicans will hold state legislative majorities and the governor’s mansions in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa, and Nevada.

http://americablog.com/2014/11/election-rigging-american-conservatism.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. It says 2012 would have been Obama 12, Romney 4

According to a draft copy of the proposal, Michigan would award at least 9 of its 16 electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote in the presidential election.

The top candidate would receive additional electoral votes based on how much they beat the second-place finisher by in one-on-one vote totals. Each 1.5 points above 50 percent would mean another electoral vote.

Remaining electoral votes would go to the runner up. A candidate who finishes third or lower would not receive any.

Under that system, President Barack Obama would have received 12 electoral votes from Michigan in 2012, down from the full 16 he actually won. Mitt Romney, the runner up, would have received four electoral college votes, up from the zero he received after losing by roughly 450,000 votes.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/11/electoral_votes_would_be_split.html

If the whole country did it, it'd be OK; the winner of the state always gets over half of the electoral votes, but there's still a few votes up for grabs, which encourages the candidates to pay a bit of attention to the state - to get all 16 Michigan votes, you'd have to get about 60% of the popular vote. But if it happens just in states that are reliably Democratic, then its effect would be to take away Dem votes.

[JonLP24]

5. Much better than going by Congressional Districts

but still could be crucial in the event its close. Also, like you said -- Blue states.

[rurallib]

18. pretty sure Iowa still has a two vote majority in the senate

and enough cohesiveness among Democrats that they can stop Terry Branstad from his wet dream of becoming another Scott Walker

[Drahthaardogs]

31. Yes, and Obama won the 2nd District in 2008

so they gerrymandered the shit out of it so THAT wouldn't happen again. In 2012, Romney won the whole state.

[jwirr]

32. This sounds like the voter suppression I was afraid of. And there are going to be a lot more R

governors than now.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. Yep

It's completely up to each state as to how they award their electoral votes.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. ,

,

[FrodosPet]

7. The electoral college system is patently unfair

The President of the United States should be elected purely on a nationwide popular vote.

A New Yorker's vote should not be worth anything more or less than a Rhode Islander's vote, or a Virginian's vote, or a Hoosier's vote, or an Oregonian's vote.

[Martin Eden]

10. I Agree

The EC is an anachronism from an era in which it was necessary for actual electors to meet and take multiple votes if necessary.

We already have a bicameral legislature in which states with small populations have the same number of senators as huge states. Adding that disproportionate representation to the presidential election is antithetical to the concept of One Citizen One Vote.

The current winner-take-all system in nearly every state was not established by the Constitution, but is constitutional because that document gave the states the power to decide how their EC votes would be apportioned. Some states decided to become a bigger prize and garner more attention from candidates by adopting winner-take-all, then other states followed suit.

The Michigan proposal in principal isn't bad, but unless other states do the same the obvious effect is more EC votes for the Republican candidate who otherwise would have zero. I would really love to see a constitutional amendment replacing the EC with a nationwide popular vote (with Instant Runoff Voting) but that won't happen because there are too many small states that would reject it. However, several years ago an idea was floated that could in effect repeal the EC by circumventing it. A state would give all its EC votes to whichever candidate won the nationwide popular vote, but that would not kick in until enough states (with a winning number of total EC votes) adopted that same law to apportion their votes.

[KamaAina]

23. The interstate compact is still out there

in fact, California just ratified it. But that still only brings it up to about 130 EVs.

[HereSince1628]

12. The electoral college shouldn't be subject to the same gerrymandering

already accomplished by federal congressional districts.

It's very obvious the motivations behind this bill are to de-emphasize the role of states' population centers which tend to be urban, minority and overall, lean democratic, by pushing the reach of successful gerrymandering all the way into presidential elections.

I share a belief with many that the ECs original reason to exist is gone, and was gone just a handful of decades after it was adopted.
However people have come to be comfortable with the electoral colleges capacity to weed out the influence of minor political parties, and amplify the popular vote in low population states.

It's change at a national level would require a constitutional amendment. It's hard to see regions with strong state's right sentiments surrendering their authority. Because of the current urban vs rural divide its hard to see any change moving toward popular vote.

Gotta say, making changes to create advantage of rigged congressional district boundaries is pretty obviously deliberate de-emphasis of urban centers.

[Martin Eden]

25. A Republican would not propose this change in a Red state

The motivation is to divide the EC votes in what is currently a solid blue state in presidential elections.

Republicans would fight tooth and nail against the exact same proposal in a red state.

[hughee99]

22. It would make it easier for candidates as well,

since they'd never have to visit 3/4th's of the country, just make sure they get great turnouts in their strongholds. A good turnout in NYC is worth more than getting every single vote in both Dakotas.

[jwirr]

33. It is unfair but I do not see the large population states giving up any time soon.

[Codeine]

78. The large population states are the ones most unfairly impacted.

There are a fair number of cities with larger populations than some "flyover" states, but those states have outsized electoral significance because of the EC system.

[still_one]

52. Absolutely. It isn't rocket science. Instead of all these games, just do the popular vote

[AnalystInParadise]

63. I would prefer American politics to not be dominated

by California, Texas, New York, Illinois and Florida.

5 states should not decide the future for 50. Protect the Electoral College.

[still_one]

64. I disagree, and not because I am from California. Unlike state elections the President is the

President of the whole country. So yes, states with a greater population do get more say in a Presidential election, but at the same token, states with very little population still get 2 Senators no matter what the size.

The electoral college has been flawed for quite some time. In the bush v Gore election it was quite evident. Why should a smaller state with less population have more say in a presidential election because of an outdated electoral college?

In fact republicans are at work right now trying to convert blue states so even the electoral college is not an all or nothing proposition, but divide the votes.

You say it would be better for American politics not to be dominated by the larger states, well since nixon's southern strategy, the country is dominated by the South, because of the stupid electoral college.

[AnalystInParadise]

65. Agree to disagree

I want the elections that don't allow the big states to exclusively dominate the small states and I am from Texas......The last thing I want is a popular vote deciding elections....I can't think of anything more harmful to a Constitutional Republic than that form of direct democracy.

[still_one]

67. The fact is still in 95% of the case the electoral college matches the popular vote. Theoretically,

Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

the very reason you believe that the electoral college gives more say to smaller states is an illusion. Iowa will always have less electoral college votes than California or Texas. The reason for the electoral college was not to give smaller states more influence, that is what 2 senators from each state does, but the electoral college was because many of the founding fathers did not trust direct democracy, and they thought a safety check should be built in which would allow a so called delegate to not necessarily vote for who he represents. It is an absurd tradition to have this middle man. In fact Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and women were banned from voting entirely. The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

[truebluegreen]

71. Did you forget the sarcasm thingie?

I mean, you're pulling my leg, right?

[AnalystInParadise]

72. No not at all

The current system keeps our politics in flux, which is where they need to be. Just because we have a slight edge in the popular vote now, does not mean we will have that same preference with voters in a decade, or two decades. We could potentially be a very unpopular party in two decades and if we went to this system, we would never win again. Remember it wasn't that long ago that California and New England were Republican strongholds and the South was Solidly Democratic. Parties change, generations change, we should fight with every fiber of our being for any type of system that could lead us down such a dark path. I am deadly serious, the Electoral College forever.

[truebluegreen]

74. You think the Electoral College protects democracy? Wow. nt

[AnalystInParadise]

79. Yes

far better than direct democracy in a Constitutional Republic ever could. We should be afraid of direct democracy in our system of government....It would be a disastrous ceding of power to the mob.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

57. ^^^^this^^^+a lot nt

[ybbor]

8. This is why the Dems need a Howard Dean strategy

The Dems need to start focussing more on local and state races. We have lost so many state legislatures in traditionally blue states. The state governments draw the district lines which affects the bigger issues. Look at how Austin was carved up by a Repub.-controlled state gov.

If this type of legislation is only passed in states that typically vote Democratic in presidential races but are currently controlled by the Repubs, then we could by royally screwed.

I believe the electoral college has flaws, but if they are only dealt with in blue states with Repub. governments it will only become worse.

Oh yeah, and this has nothing to do with wanting MI to have more visits from candidates. It is simply another ALEC strategy they are beginning to implement.

[kpominville]

9. They can't win on their policies...

...so they have to rig the elections. Tax cuts for the wealthy and tax hikes and lower wages for everyone else.

[Scuba]

11. Look for Wisconsin to follow suit shortly.

[Still In Wisconsin]

46. Question, Scuba:

Can the Republicans do this all by themselves here in WI, or do they need to amend the state constitution?

I did notice Walker never mentioned this during the campaign. Color me shocked. I wonder if there are enough non-rabid repubs in the the senate to put the kibosh on this if ratfink Vos starts pushing it in the assembly.

[Scuba]

58. I don't know the answer to that, but knowing the Republicans they'll try regardless.

[Half-Century Man]

76. I'm pretty sure this has it's roots in ALEC

And our legislature has ALEC board members.

So...Coming soon in a state house near you...Gross Fuckery!

[caraher]

77. Not mentioning it in a campaign is no barrier

In Michigan Snyder campaigned as a pragmatic centrist then ripped off the mask once in office. In Indiana, "right-to-work" was never part of the discussion during campaigns, emerging as a legislative priority only after the Republicans had the votes.

[still_one]

53. Look at what WI has become. This actually might help the Democrats somewhat, though I am sure that

is not their intention

[watoos]

13. This is worse than gerrymandering

Republicans are going to do this in purple or blue states. Thank god we elected a Democratic governor in Pennsylvania. Think about it for a minute. Pa. already gerrymanders, so in House elections they get more Reps. compared with the actual overall vote. Just imagine Pa. would pretty much split its Presidential electoral votes, or it is very likely that a Republican would get more electoral votes even though the majority of the state voted Democratic. because Dems are mainly located in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and have floated the idea of splitting up its electoral votes, hopefully our new governor would veto such a Bill. Hopefully they won't rush a Bill through before Wolf takes office.

I agree with the other poster that this idea wouldn't have as much of an impact if all of the states did it this way, but Republicans aren't going to split up the vote in red states. This idea, tactic, is another attack on our democracy.

[Cosmocat]

15. And, the LAST state that would would do this - Texas

cause that brings all of those EVs to the R ...

WTF the people of this country put up with their shit is a complete mystery to me.

[kairos12]

14. Add electoral gerrymandering to dark money and voter suppression to the election

strategy of the rethugs.

[B Calm]

16. Remember when Republicans were wanting to do away with the Electoral College in the 2000 election?

[tanyev]

17. Funny how they never want to do this in states that always go red.

Just more GOP trying to game the system.

[sammy750]

19. Republicans across this nation are setting up the states for a big win in 2016.

The big surprise is most of the Republicans will be defeated in 2016. With all the noise that McConnell and Boehner is making, the American voters have had enough. The GOP won by the votes of the ignorant voters, yes, the USA is rated #1 as being most ignorant in the world. They don't understand that they are being fed LIES and mis information.

[MrScorpio]

20. Fuck these people...

Both the President and Romnuts made several visits to Michigan during the last general. The President came to Detroit to campaign for Democrats in this last election. We're nothing like a "flyover state."

These cheating motherfuckers are lying through their veneers.

[KamaAina]

24. And Mittwit called himself a "son of Detroit"

more like Grosse Pointe Heights. :eyes.

He also pointed out that Michigan's trees are the right height.

[navarth]

37. Just for clarity...

there ain't no 'Grosse Point Heights'. Romney was from Bloomfield Hills I believe. Ah, Bloomfield Hills....that bastion of Socialist Forward thinking......NOT

[napkinz]

21. K&R

nt

[randys1]

26. Republicans cant win elections, they can only steal them, if they are behind this

then that is all I need to know.

[dbackjon]

27. More attempts to subvert Democracy

[Old Nick]

28. Delaying the Inevitable

In all 50 states. Demographics like gravity: You can defy it for a while, but, in the end, it wins 100% off the time.

[ibeplato]

29. math?

the article says under this system Obama would have gotten 12 of Michigan's 16 votes in 2012. But he won 54.21% that year, shouldn't that net him 11 votes (winning = 9, exceeding 51.5 = 1, exceeding 53.0 = 1 - total 11)?

[libman100]

30. This is a strategy to "steal" the presidential election

Nothing more, nothing less.

Notice how this is always talked about in states Dems almost always win in presidential elections. It's never talked about in states Repubs. usually win.

Dems better stand up and become outraged over this as republicans would be if the shoe was on the other foot.

[Takket]

34. “Candidates running for president currently don’t feel the need to come to Michigan in order to win.

That's a fascinating statement, considering Obama and Romney both came here in 2012.

[awoke_in_2003]

70. He can say stupid stuff like that...

and republican voters will believe it. They are masters of doublethink.

[Faryn Balyncd]

35. This is HUGE. The GOP plan to geerymander preisdential elections by DIVIDING BLUE STATES votes, &...

.... keeping red states as all or none, is one of their current plans to set OLIGARCHY in CONCRETE.


It must be stopped now or it will become much, much more difficult to reverse.

[catbyte]

39. How? It is hopeless. Baggers dominate the legislature & Rick the Dictator re-electd. We be fucked.

I am without optimism. I am without hope. I am tired. I am fed up. I am glad I am almost 60 and had no kids. Fuuuuck.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. The GOP also plans to GERRYMANDER the SENATE, by repealing the 17th Amend., & appointing Senators...

... by gerrymandered state legislatures.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. not possible (politically)

No way are you going to get the votes to amend the Constitution for anything. Not the way things are divided right now (and for the near future, at least).

Anyone talking about any amendment to the Constitution is blowing hot air.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. Yep n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. Well, I will amend slightly

No amendment is going to make it through Congress.

Now when it comes to a state convention...well, that I'm not so sure about. I doubt any amendments could come from that, but there's a greater chance than trying to take an amendment through Congress.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. you also need 3/4 of the states to ratify it

beyond the 2/3 majority in each House of Congress.



Simply not possible.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. It would depend on the amendment

Republicans will soon control 27 state legislatures, plus Nebraska. Add in Kentucky, which though Democratic is still pretty conservative for 29.

Sure, they need 38, and it would be incredibly difficult, but not nearly as difficult as going the Congressional route.

[Faryn Balyncd]

69. I would have thought that very recently. And you are correct that Constitutional Amendments are more

...difficult than most anything else.

But 10 years ago I would not have thought it possible that virtually any of the current Republican plans to secure control of all levels of government by an oligarchy would have been possible, or that these positions would even be supported by any significant numbers of Republicans.

But now we have a minority party that cannot get a majority of nationwide popular vote, but who has a stranglehold on the House of Representatives despite a majority of voters nationwide voting for a Democrat for Representative, solely because of the most effective use of gerrymandering that has ever existed in our history.

And now we have a Senate controlled by Republicans despite the fact that the total votes for all Senators over the last 3 cycles has been for Democratic Senators.

And we have Republicans passing voter suppression laws more effective than any since Jim Crow.

And we now have a Republican Party where even the candidates being smeared by the Ted Cruz wing of the party as "liberal" are taking positions virtually no one would have advocated a few years ago (as exemplified by the fact that every single Republican candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor, including Dewhurst supports repealing the 17th Amendment.

Yes, amendments are difficult to pass, but Americans are facing a party of oligarchs that are becoming more shameless the more power they have.

They should not be underestimated.

[catbyte]

38. Assholes have turned my once great state into Michissippi. Anti-American vermin.

[Motown_Johnny]

43. Candidates visit Michigan

Obama has done it several times while campaigning. Romney did it. McCain did it and Palin nearly blew a gasket when the (R)s pulled money out of MI in '08.

Lund's argument is clearly bull shit.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. This is to water down the "urban" vote....

.....if you know what I mean....

Simple country folk should decide elections....

[tokenlib]

49. Is that Snyder's lake house that had a leaky roof??

just wondering....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. Naw,...I just google imaged a Michigan mansion and looked for a "simple country home".

[tokenlib]

48. the lunatics run the asylum in Michigan....

and we can't do anything to stop them it seems....

[still_one]

54. Well if people don't vote what do we expect

[still_one]

51. Well when people don't vote they get the exact government they deserve

[Liberal Lolita]

55. It's the set up of the state

We have by far more people in the Detroit area. They put us over the top for electoral votes. Detroit is a small part of our big state. The cons control the state because they control the vast rural areas.
Yes, more people need to get out to vote, but I don't see it changing our state government.

[still_one]

56. that is the only way it can be changed through voting at the state level

[Liberal Lolita]

73. The thing is there aren't many dems in the burbs

There isn't going to be change unless you can get a whole bunch of people to change there stripes. Seriously, the state is in Republican hands because that is what most of the residents are, in the rural areas, which is most of the state. When it comes to things like the President, and our Senators we are able to win because then they are counting all votes in the state. When it comes to local races outside of Detroit, and some of the other large cities the Republicans win overwhelmingly. In fact in many local races there isn't even a challenger.
I'm all for getting out the vote, but it won't make a difference in the state house.

[ladjf]

59. Rig it! Rigpublicans all over the Country are still busy rigging every election. nt

[tooeyeten]

60. What the heck

Let's just eliminate voting all together, divine Republicans "God"'and let chips fall where they may, let the 99% revolt, and begin again.

[heaven05]

61. these idiot

voters of michigan voted snyder back in so what can be expected. The only joy I get out of the whole Nov 4 2014 debacle is that many, many RWers WILL be hurt by their voting choices(s). Yes, JOY!!!!!!!

[Burf-_-]

62. DO SOMETHING TO STOP THEM ....TODAY!

Unless the truly progressive do something very quickly to reverse the political hegemony that is being constructed by these right-wing fascists, we may see the end of our country and what it was properly founded to be. Yes .... I am saying "the end is nigh".... For democracy, for liberty, and for true freedom. If we continue to let them push their agenda and don't get hardcore enough to FIGHT back with something HARDER then we are to blame more than they are. Now get out there and Fight !!!

[Old Nick]

66. Election by Nationwide Direct Vote: Eliminate the Electoral College

As for the Congress, do what several other democracies do: Proportion of Vote = Proportion of Seats.

[davidn3600]

81. Need to pass a constitutional amendment for that

Which means it aint ever going to happen.

[nakocal]

68. Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township is a liar

Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township is a lying low-life scumbag. His bill will NOT make the state more important to presidental candidates. He has just made sure that republicans will get more electoral college votes.

[BE10sCoach]

75. REPUGS need

to be stopped, when will decent people stand up against the stealing of Democracy in the USA. We need Howard Dean and
the 50 state stragety back, we must take the scum on at every level and Democrats Must vote!
Surpress, deny, rig the system, buy the system, set up an oligarchy. what a shame to see this in 2014.
I really hate the bastards!

[TheFarseer]

80. i would enthusiastically support every state doing this

But individual states doing it is unfair to other states and one or the other party.

[enki23]

82. Scorched-earth politics.

When Republicans take territory they do not expect to hold, they do as much damage as possible before they are evicted. They burn the crops, level the buildings, tear up the roads and leave behind snipers and minefields.

This currently applies to the entire nation.

[still_one]

83. To bad they won't do it, but they really should get rid of the electoral college and go by the

popular vote for President

[Pauldg47]

84. The electoral college is important for us ......

.... In a presidential election, our state traditionally gives our electorals to our party. If it is split, the repuks could steal an election.

Stop this now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

85. If it's done legally, it isn't stealing

It would suck, but it wouldn't be stealing.