*** Changing the rules, not the party: Some Republicans are looking to change the Electoral College system in battleground states that Democrats have won in the last two cycles. As the Washington Post reports, Republicans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- all controlled at the state level (in some form or fashion) by the GOP -- have proposed awarding their Electoral College votes by congressional district instead of the winner-take-all approach used by every state except for two (Maine and Nebraska). “No state is moving quicker than Virginia, where state senators are likely to vote on the plan as soon as next week,” the Post says.
WHAT THAT DOES IS GIVES A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WITH 1/10 THE POPULATION THE SAME ELECTOIAL PULL AS A DISTRICT WITH 10 TIMES THE POPULATION. THAT IS CHEATING. IT ALLOWS THE MINORITY OF THE VOTERS TO RULE THE ELECTIONS OVER THE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY
THE REPUBLICANS WILL KEEP LOSING UNLESS THEY COOK THE RULES. WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!!!!!!!!
The Winner Take All system in the Republican primaruies for 2008 and 2012 assured us of McCain then Romney as the Republican candidate.
The proportional voting system used by the Democrats (with the special Super Delegates at the end) assured us of a long, hard primary campaign between Hillary & Obama that neither was able to conclude without the vote from the Super Delegates. (e.g. Party Faithful!).
You are misinformed.
(1) Congressional Districts are each about the same size. Right now each has about 712000 people. 310 million people / 435 House members =~ 712000. The whole point of the House of Reps is that each Congressman represents a more or less equal number of people.
(2) Electoral College is slightly different since number of Electors per state = Number of Senators + Number of House Members. Number of Senators = 2 for every state.
(3) The "Winner Take All" system for the Electoral College has been traditional in the USA but it is not required by US Constitution. There are two states already that apportion the Electors by popular vote in each election district. I think Maine and maybe Nebraska. (Or North Dakota? Some state in the midwest.)
(4) If all the states adopted an apportionment approach, the Electoral College vote would more closely track the popular vote. Barack Obama would still have won in 2012.
(5) Some people argue that an apportionment system would compel candidates to campaign across every election district. There is currently little point for a Republican to campaign in upstate NY, even though there are a lot of Republicans there. NY will always vote Democrat because of NYC & other urban voters. Some say this would gi ve NY Republicans more say in the Presidential election. A similar, reverse case, can be made for Democrats in Texas.
(6) The intent of the Electoral College was that each State was sovereign in the Republic and thus voting for President was by State and not by popular vote.
(7) A more interesting fact is that Congress set the total number of House Members at 435 back in 1911 when our population was less than a third what it is now. Back then the ratio of House members to population was 1 in about 211,000. Over the last century, every American has been more and more disenfranchised by the fact that the ratio is now 1 in about 711,000. Thus our representation in the House is only 29.7% what it was in 1911. If we had the same representation today we would have more like 1469 members in the House of Representatives. Which would favor much more local representation.
(8) This would impact the Presidential Election since the Electors in the Electoral College is the number of Senators plus the number of House members. If we ALSO adopted a proportional voting system, results in the Electoral College would much more closely track the popular vote. And presidential campaign tactics & strategy would change drastically! Each candidate would have to campaign all across the nation. Every election district might be a "battle ground district!" Just think: Al Gore might have won in 2000!