These proposed changes aren't about proportioning electoral votes by popular vote. They are about aportioning EVs by congresssional district. These districts have been heavily gerrymandered to the point where a vote by a Democrat counts less than a vote by a Republican. This would disenfranchise millions of voters.

Re: #2.1

"In Pennsylvania, the supporter of a stalled bill to divide the electoral college votes by congressional district is planning a new one to divide them according to the popular vote." (emphasis added)

If all states awarded Electoral College votes by popular vote, then would that be the same as just getting rid of the EC and using the popular vote?

On the other hand, if Red States are winner-take-all and blue States are divided in some fashion, do you still get the same result?

Re: #2.3

If EC votes are assigned to states proportional to population, and then each state's votes are proportional to the popular vote in the state, then the grand total is the same as the overall popular vote.

If the states don't all do it the same way, then it's just messed up.

That's how it would work IF EVERY STATE did this. That is most certainly NOT going to happen in Texas or Arkansas or Mississippi or any other GOP stronghold state, that is not what they intend to do at all. What they want is a portion of the votes IN BLUE STATES ONLY. If this became common, then the GOP would only have to get about 40% of the popular vote to win the presidency every time. Now really, is there any other proper term for this other than rigging the vote? If this actually happened, the USA would go up in flames, there'd be no other recourse from single party rule.

If this actually happened, the USA would go up in flames, there'd be no other recourse from single party rule.

Eventually, a combination of demographics and overreach will result in the balance tipping. And that's not a Good Thing.

There's nothing particularly wonderful about majority rule, except that it ensures that in the long run you don't have the majority of the populace becoming so desperate that they are willing to overturn the whole system. Which is what very nearly happened eighty years ago, regardless of what right-wing historical revisionism suggests. The only reason that the United States didn't have a revolution was that FDR got out ahead of the radicals and promised the majority an acceptable compromise.

The Right has been working at abrogating that compromise ever since.

There is no legal problem with the Electoral College manipulation.

There is an ethical one of course but Zealots tend to have very flexible morals.

As far as I know, any State that still has Voting Rights Act oversight is subject to DOJ scrutiny if the DOJ decides to. This includes Virginia I believe.

Look at who the AG is. Not worth the air he uses. The President told him to "standardize" the Federal voter laws. He's done nothing on that. Need I say more?

If I recall..portions of Virginia are still subject to oversight but some counties are exempt. At any rate, I don't think that the DOJ can step in until after the bill becomes law. (And the burden of proof is with the State.)

They can make standardize the laws for All ferderal elections. Holder has been told to do so. He's chosen to set on his a$$. States can have their own laws for state elections, but fereral law would prevail for federal elections.

And why isn't the Justice Dept., investigating?

Because it actually is completely legal and constitutional, so far as I know.

From the US Constitution, Article II, section 1, paragraph 2: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress."

The key part is "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." The manner of appointing electors is left entirely to the whims of each individual state legislature. Tying the choosing of electors to the popular vote is no more or less constitutional than any other scheme, because the Constitution provides no guidelines at all. That's what makes what Republicans are doing so dangerous. The only thing violated by their scheme is our sense of how things ought to be; and that hardly has the force of law.

There is a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit every year. Obama's proposed tax increase would only bring in 1 trillion dollars over 10 years. That doesn't even come close to balancing the budget. So the only option left is to cut spending. It amazes me that you can't see there's a spending problem.

Hey Johnny Waygood - don't worry about me and spending. I agree with you, and the honest thing to think, say and do regarding our current situation is to fess up and openly accept responsibility where responsibility rests:

Bush's wars of election (he elected to go to war) without any consideration as to how we would pay for them!

Bush's tax cuts that imploded our revenue streams that had produced a healthy economy and deficit free budgeting between 1997 and 2002!

Bush's Medicare Big Pharm give away that was not countermanded by revenue!

So, Johnny, my observation stands - Republicans have no problem throwing money down a military-industrial complex, or crony capitalism, hole year after year to help entities like Haliburton, but their hypocrisy prevents them from believing the safety nets are sustainable, and then, it is they who inevitably invoke God's name to shut humanitarian policies down!

So, Johnny, do you buy into the "useless grazers" meme? -Kevo

kevo, There you go again, blaming everything on Bush............

(And rightly so) LOL

Hello Kevo. Don't forget that it was Obama who continued the tax cuts that you criticise Bush for implementing.

To try to say that this is all Bush's fault is somewhat simplistic. Obama has been in office for 4 years and he's already added to the national debt what Bush added in his entire 8 years.

Yeah Johnny - Show me your sources (and they must be credible) regarding your claim, or shut up when it comes to this subject!

Also, as a trained historian, I will merely bring context to your sophomoric assertion, "Don't forget that it was Obama who continued the tax cuts that you criticise (are you British, if not, [sic]) Bush for implementing."

Johnny Boy - Don't throw down an incomplete historical claim. The politics around President Obama's acceptance of a two year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts was no picnic as you imply! Pres. Obama said not again, and this time, our revenue structure has changed for the better because of it.

No, Johnny, democracy is like sausage making - a brutal process most of the time, but in the end, a meal is made so we can eat at the table of civic discourse - unless the other side has tainted the production process!

And as a Republican for the past 30+ years, interacting with Republicans under the big tent on many political matters for all this time, I can say from my vantage that the Republican Brand not only does not represent anything close to a majority of Americans, they seemingly don't care to in the first place! -Kevo

Hello Kevo,

I'm Australian actually, not that my spelling should matter.

You made a big claim up there that Bush is to blame for reducing the revenue stream.

I remember the 2000 election race between Bush and Gore, and I remember what the number one issue was at the time, it was who would end the stifling Clinton taxes. Both Bush and Gore put forth their plans for lowering taxes.

Now, if Gore had won, and assuming he had kept his word, then he would have lowered the Clinton taxes too.

Of course we don't know to what extent he would have lowered them, and whether or not Bush reduced them too far is debatable, but the point is there was never any way we were going to continue with your beloved Clinton tax plan, under Bush, Gore, or Obama today.

I'm not completely against raising taxes, but Obama is wrong to try to break the GOP. He has become completely fixated on getting his tax increase, a tax increase that even he admits won't even come remotely close to balancing the budget. He's already on path to double Bush's debt. There comes a point when you have to blame the president who is actually in power. He's a terrible president, and I predict in the next two years he will become a lame-duck and their will be a national backlash against him like there was against Bush.

That's a lot of misinformation you've got there. If you were actually informed, you'd know perfectly well that federal spending has gone down, not up, under Obama; that the deficit has also gone down; and that the primary drivers of the debt and defict are the Bush tax cuts and his two unfunded wars. Also, the sun rises in the east and puppies are warm and fuzzy. Make an effort to actually know what you are talking about and people will be less likely to laugh at you.

LMAO, sure it has.

You make the simplistic claim that the deficit is due to two unfunded wars and Bush's tax cuts. Let's see, one of the wars is over, the other is petering out, and we just raised taxes, and yet the deficit is still at record levels. We haven't even seen Obamacare kick-in yet.

Just admit it, Obama is a terrible leader and he's bankrupting the country.

You have got to be kidding me. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade, and you think the reduction in revenue has had no impact? And that the debt created by the tax cuts and the wars have, what, just magically vanished somehow? And as for the slight uptick in the marginal tax rates on upper incomes...those new rates haven't yet gone into effect! The 2012 tax season won't end until April 15, and the new rates were not in effect in 2012. Again, there's your magical thinking: if the debt and deficit don't just go poof because Obama is president, that's Obama's fault. I've got news for you: history didn't reset the moment Obama was first sworn in. The consequences of earlier events have continued.

I will not admit anything that is patently false and insane simply because an egotistical and ignorant right-wing man has ordered me to. You have a lousy attitude and I am done with you.

You can call me names all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Obama has been a horrible president.

We don't need to wait for the new rates to go into effect. We already know that Obama's proposed tax increase won't even balance the budget for 1 out of the 10 years it's planned for.

So, please explain to me how he will balance the budget for the other 9 years, if not from massive spending cuts?

Yet Obama is absolutely obsessed with raising taxes, despite the fact that the spending problem far out-weighs the tax problem.

If you're still using the Bush excuse in 2016, you're in real trouble.

Why is it that Democrats and liberals love to blame the Bush tax rates for our deficit problems and contributing to the debt, yet they are not willing to support the idea of raising all of the tax rates back to where they were under Clinton. Even though every tax bracket benefitted from reductions under Bush, which means the VAST majority of Americans received more money in their paycheck, for some reason, Dems and Libs think that only the top wage earners should be paying higher rates.

Your hypocrisy shows mightily. Higher rates are great for everyone else, as long as you do not have to pay them.

The earlier event of Obama not being able to even get the Democrats to vote for his budget has been kicking in for almost 4 years now. Its about time this man leads by example...

When will any of this be Obama's responsibility? or does he get a pass on everything?

just saying...

You really don't expect any do you?

no but he's gonna get called on it...

This election has been brought to you by Fox News: checked and balanced.

so the voting system put in place at the inception of this country is suddenly not good anymore for the republicans so it needs to be "fixed" *wink**wink*

motivation is a b*%#^ and it explains so much...

if we could get the likes of Dibold out of the election process, it shouldn't be a problem. Canada still counts ballots by hand, and the only reason we don't is our incessant need to know RIGHT NOW!!!. patience in the democratic process is necessary and should be encouraged.