My proposal is this. Last month I noted that certain states with Republican-controlled legislatures and/or governors were considering changes to how they appointed their representatives to the Electoral College every four years, to elect the President. Instead of giving all their electors to the presidential candidate who gained the majority of votes in their State, they’re thinking of allocating them on the basis of each congressional district. The candidate who gets the most votes in each congressional district would get that district’s electoral vote.
Peter suggests that doing this would swing the vote significantly to the Republicans in the next election. Assuming that the Republicans actually put a real conservative, complete with respect for civil rights, up as a candidate, it’s not a bad idea. Of course, they haven’t done that since 1984, so take that for what it’s worth.
What do y’all think?
DaddyBear’s Den 
derfreiheit
/ January 10, 2013As a Libertarian this pleases me. A good source for this info locally is Independent Kentucky, they’re big on ballot access and voting reforms.
LikeLike
Old NFO
/ January 10, 2013Interesting point, and I don’t know what I think about that… Gotta go ponder a bit…
LikeLike
daddybear71
/ January 10, 2013My only negative thoughts are “What happens when the political pendulum inevitably swings the other way?” and “What if the Republicans become worse than the Democrats?”.
LikeLike
Kurt P
/ January 10, 2013If that would have been the thing in 2000, we’d be talking about President Albert R. Gore Jr, as ex-president.
LikeLike
daddybear71
/ January 11, 2013Good point, Kurt. Whoever controlled the House would probably always win.
LikeLike