What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan

Republicans have a new strategy for 2016: Change the rules of presidential elections in order to swing the Electoral College in the GOP's favor.

On Wednesday, Virginia's Republican-controlled legislature became one of the first to advance a bill that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district. Last week, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed pushing through similar proposals in other states with Republican legislative majorities.

The strategy would have states alter the way they translate individual votes into electors -- thereby giving Republican candidates an advantage. Had the 2012 election been apportioned in every state according to these new Republican plans, Romney would have led Obama by at least 11 electoral votes. Here's how:

In the 2012 election, President Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 126 electoral votes.

Within the 26 states that Obama took, Romney won a plurality of votes in 99 congressional districts.

Obama, on the other hand, won only 32 congressional districts in red states.

Each state has two more electoral votes than congressional districts. The most common Republican proposal -- under consideration in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan -- follows the same rules already in effect in Maine and Nebraska, which allocate the two additional votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote.

This is what the 2012 electoral map would have looked like had each state apportioned its electors using these rules.

The legislation introduced in Virginia, however, goes even further and proposes to allocate the two remaining votes not to the candidate who wins the state-wide popular vote, but to the candidate who wins the majority of congressional districts. This would give Republicans an even bigger advantage in that state.

Sources: The Associated Press, The Cook Political Report. Calculations do not include results for NY-1, NY-2 or PA-7.

Comments

[Marc88567]

01:55 AM on 05/13/2013

The current plan favors Dems! Just look at Illinois and Colorado. The majority of the state is Republicans, nearly every county in Illinois I've lived in all elected Republican City officials...yet Chicago and Denver decide were all of those electoral votes go to. Neither way really seems fair except for the popular vote. But then again, we would have New York, Chicago, and LA deciding our president each year.
I like the Idiocracy way (a Mike Judge film). Let the WWE champion be our president. Hell, all a president does is read from a prompter, sign bills, and give general the go-ahead anyway....all other decision are made by the cabinet members and generals.

[Will737]

12:49 PM on 04/06/2013

There's only one reason this appeals to Republicans.

Without it, it's tough to gerrymander a whole state.

[read "impossible" with tongue in cheek]

[Legal Plunder]

12:08 PM on 02/07/2013

I've thought of something: On the other hand, if the election were completely based on Democratic principles, you'd just have one big blue nation, no red at all. But they won't show us that.... ;-P

Your colors don't fool me or elicit an emotional response like it obviously has for you. I care more about which method is the most fair, just, and accurate, whether it's based on the principles of a pure democracy, classical republic, or other system that we do not yet implement.

[vtracy95]

07:31 PM on 01/30/2013

will they ever just >GET OVER IT...republicans will not win another election no matter what they do untill they get rid of the crazies.....

[Jeffg70]

11:52 AM on 01/29/2013

If folks really want to start messing with the centuries old Electoral College, I say do away with it completely. We're not the uninformed masses of the 19th century anymore. This article (and the 2000 election) just prove how antiquated our system is.

[PleaseThinkBefore]

04:51 PM on 01/29/2013

Have you ever seen the random man interviews on evening news?! 'We' absolutely are uninformed masses. I dare say we are more uniformed today then they were in 1776.

[PaganPaladin]

09:05 AM on 01/30/2013

Automatic plan - voters of a state vote for the candidate of their choice. Candidate with most votes gets all the state's EC votes. No more "districting"/"gerrymandering and all the fraud that goes with it

[starwatcher55]

11:40 AM on 01/29/2013

Its amazing how Republicians want to change a system jusy because they fear never being elected.Never mind they are out of touch with a changing world

[ChefPete1]

10:29 PM on 01/28/2013

Sorry but I am all for it. This way maybe some of the billions in campaign funds will trickle into lowly Berks County (PA) and we will FINALLY get Bumper Stickers for the first time since '76!

[PleaseThinkBefore]

04:52 PM on 01/29/2013

Great comment!

[Adam William Majkowski]

04:42 PM on 01/28/2013

Both parties support never ending global military conquest. Both parties support no taxes for the top 2% wealthiest people and extra taxes for people making poverty wages. One side believes in illegal abortion but no social programs to take care of the babies, the other supports legal abortion and inadequate social programs for a select few people. Both parties want to keep drugs and prostitution illegal, thus supporting gang wars on our streets. We are going nowhere and accomplishing nothing with this government. When will we rebel and form a fair government with rules that make sense for everyone?

[ChefPete1]

10:34 PM on 01/28/2013

Absolutely correct. This whole point became moot in 2000 when they got right in our faces and stole the process. That's when we shoulda taken to the streets!

[GeminijlwWilson]

06:10 AM on 03/03/2013

So true, status quo is what they want, both sides, and to achieve that they must keep us fighting, and what better way than bringing up these ridiculous ideas to separate us even more. As I am an independent, I can see that each side has good and bad ideas, but we need to focus our energies on what we need for the whole. Common sense does not enter into our government functions, that is where we, as the people, need to step in, and say we are not going to allow this to continue. To do that we need to put all our differences aside, and come together. We then need to march on Washington and fire them all. We do have that power, so let's use it.

[AmandaGwiz]

02:44 PM on 01/28/2013

My issue with the comments posted is most think this is just a "republican" idea. Or a GOP initiative to rig future elections.

NEWS FLASH: A LOT OF OUR ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED(or have been rigged)

You are completely blind if you don't notice that republican or democrat- they are puppets under the control of the SAME people.

It's no longer about democrats vs republicans. It's about the Bilderberg group and who THEY want to rule our country. It's about THEIR agenda.

Do some research and look it up for yourself.

This country is headed nowhere fast if we don't change some things.

[Adam Woehler]

01:49 PM on 01/28/2013

Defense contractors in Virginia have received almost a half-trillion in government contracts since 2000. I say we cut them off from the FED teet if the state wants to start rigging elections. Cut off their highway money too.

[Deschris]

11:22 AM on 01/28/2013

So you lose the popular vote in a state and nation wide and you become the president....Good luck with that fascists.

[VikThor]

09:15 AM on 01/28/2013

I just LOVE how so many people here are calling those who don't agree with them "uneducated", "ignorant", "retards" and similar names. BOTH SIDES are using this language.

Pure Democracy = minority has no say. The MAJORITY of this country is still Christian of some sort or another. Therefore under a Pure Democracy, those of us who aren't of the general Christian belief system can be ignored. (and YES I know there is a WIDE range in Christian views on many things.)
Pure Democracy = everyone votes on EVERYTHING. Do you want to have to vote on everything? At EVERY level of government? City, county, state and national?

We are a Democratic Republic. We elect representatives. We (presumably) let our representatives know how we feel on issues that are important to us. They (presumably) listen to all their constituents who feel like letting them know something.

Do some changes need to be made? Yes.

Some of the changes that I think should be made:
Get the Redistricting process out of the hands of the parties. That I think is one of the biggest issues.
Increase the number of Federal Representatives. Not to 6,000 as I saw mentioned somewhere in the comments, but maybe 500-750.

[ciccolilli]

11:49 AM on 01/30/2013

VikThor has the right idea and I have been saying the same for years. I live in a congressional district where my congressman has not represented my views on a single issue in more than thirty years. I have no say at all because I am part of the minority in his district. I pay taxes, he spends my money the way he wants and I have no input. Why should he have the right just to ignore the wishes of 40% of the people he represents? I think there should be TWO representatives for each congressional district. One representing the majority party in the election and one representing the next highest candidate in the district who will then represent all the others in that district who did not vote for the majority candidate. Each would have a fractional vote in congress. If the majority candidate received 55% of the vote, he would have 55% of one vote in congress and the minority representative would have 45% of a vote. This way I will (potentially) have someone who will represent my views. Right now, I have "taxation WITHOUT representation."

[GeminijlwWilson]

06:16 AM on 03/03/2013

More representatives, are you crazy, or just too trusting? For 40 years I have seen the majority with no representation. To increase the reps would be more money to cronies, to more family members, and government would increase and put us more in debt. The system is broken, and until we realize we have the power to change that through peaceful protests, with all of us together, nothing will change. It is the system that is set up that is corrupt, and you can be ethical going in, but it does not take long to become corrupt. How many times do you hear from our elected officials, when asked by the news, the majority of citizens want this, and the answer is, 'They don't really understand", "They don't really want that.", or "Those polls are correct." In other words ignoring the people is what they do best.

[PayingAttention]

09:09 AM on 01/28/2013

After WW1 the French put up the Maginot Line along the German border. By going through Belgium the Germans rendered the Line a complete waste of effort and money. The Republicans are making the same mistake as the French. They believe they can win elections simply by playing defense. If this scheme actually is put in place the Democrats will adjust their strategy to find a way around it.
What Republicans seem incapable of doing is to put forward a vision for America that appeals to a changing demographic. Their only strategy is to try to thwart everything the other side wants to do, and then offer some pretty thin gruel for the average citizen in return.
People remember, or have heard from their parents, that America used to be a land of improving expectations. Kids did better than their parents. Its certainly not the case anymore. Young people are graduating with massive student loans and a weak job market. The Republicans appear not even to want to try to do anything about it. Other than abortion restrictions, tax cuts for the rich, chopping the social safety nets, and never finding a war they didn't like Republicans have little interest in the plight of the little guy.
So let them put up their "Maginot Line". It won't work for them any better than it did for the French.

[dog chow]

09:31 AM on 01/28/2013

Because somebody is of color or gay ect. doesn't mean we as Americans have to capitulate and adopt a system of governingg that has failed in the rest of the world. We need to teach the changing demographic the virtues of self reliance, individual initiative and spirit, and not relying on the government to provide, but for people to provide with a strong foundation of family, ethics and hard work. Your view is typically bigoted, that if somebody is of color they need more assistance. Hogwash.

[Erik Miitel]

10:49 PM on 01/27/2013

The title of this article is misleading... its not rigging. Its redistributing voting so that people get more of a real say than just having urbanites dictate how things will go.

[RickDornfeld]

10:59 PM on 01/27/2013

Obama got 5.3 million more votes than Romney. If you really want to make every vote count we could move to a national popular vote. This congressional reapportionment is about gerrymandering elections in favor of Republican presidential candidates.

[SirReal1]

12:57 AM on 01/28/2013

I can't help finding your comment extremely offensive.

"so that people get more of a real say than just having urbanites dictate"

"Urbanites" aren't "people"?

Seriously?

How can a system be called "fair" that would have produced a 'Loser' in the Election that ended up with nearly 5 Million more votes than the 'Winner'?

[wdwflash]

08:40 PM on 01/27/2013

Sounds like a system that should have been put in from the beginning. Example: People on the east side of Washington State don't have a say in their government because Seattle/Tacoma is on the west side. Give people a voice in their government or face a 2nd revolution!

[SirReal1]

01:01 AM on 01/28/2013

How does the election of a President, who won the 'Popular Vote' by over 4 Million votes, not "give people a voice in their Government'?

How does the geographic location of Seattle/Tacoma change whether people on the east side of Washington State "have a say in their Government"?

You sound terribly confused.

[dhuntingto]

05:17 AM on 01/28/2013

Most conservatives appear to be confused but rather they are counting on the ignorance of the many to push their self serving agenda.

[Meg825]

08:03 PM on 01/28/2013

So what you're saying is that you're mad that more people disagree with your political opinion than agree with it so you think that your opinion should be more important so you get your way?
That's pretty ignorant.

[PleaseThinkBefore]

05:06 PM on 01/29/2013

I think he's saying that if you only take into account the 'popular vote', then there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in 'more rural' areas. That pretty much guarantees that the President is pretty much being chosen by the whim of citizens in about 10 major metropolitan areas. There has to be a way to protect the 'minority' voice even in the Presidential races.