Rhode Island: Presidential election reform reintroduced in Rhode Island | The Brown Daily Herald

The National Popular Vote Bill — a product of the national movement aiming to reform the presidential election process by modifying the Electoral College — has returned to the forefront of state politics. The legislation was introduced in the state House of Representatives in February, marking the fifth time the bill will be heard in the Rhode Island General Assembly. Representatives will vote May 1 on the measure, which currently has 45 sponsors in the House. Under the bill’s provisions, the candidate who receives the most votes nationally will be elected president. This system stands in contrast to the current method of the Electoral College, in which 48 of 50 states follow a “winner-take-all” method, meaning that the candidate who receives the highest percentage of votes in the state could be awarded all of the state’s electors. Nebraska and Maine are the current outliers in this system — they appropriate their electoral votes in proportion to voter opinion. Currently, the candidate who receives the majority of electoral votes across the nation is named president.

Editorials: Direct Popular Vote v. The Electoral College | ChicagoNow

I know the elections are awhile away, but with all of this campaign coverage I think it is plausible to discuss a controversy during election time. Remember the Presidential Election of 2000? Yes, the one that led to the Supreme Court Case of Bush v. Gore. I’m talking about the dreaded Electoral College. According to a Gallup Poll, 62% of Americans would favor Direct Popular Vote over the Electoral College . However, our current system of election isn’t all that bad…and it’s a lot better than the alternative. The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years and in over 50 presidential elections. It ensures that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern, and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Chile: Parties propose changes to Chile’s electoral system | Santiago Times

The center-left Christian Democrat (DC) party and center-right National Renewal (RN) party presented a proposal on Tuesday that would replace Chile’s controversial binomial electoral system with a proportional system similar to the Electoral College in the United States. DC President Ignacio Walker and Carlos Larraín, of the RN, outlined the proposal called the “New Political Regime in Chile” at the former Congress building in Santiago.
“We want to give the country an offer that would move it toward a new political regime and would significantly increase the inclusion of political parties to better democratize Chile,” Walker told local media.

Editorials: The electoral train wreck scenario | Martin Frost/Politico.com

Train wrecks don’t happen often in American politics. But there could be one in this presidential election. And if it occurs, it will be big. Consider. The Constitution has a specific provision regarding an Electoral College deadlock. The bottom line is that if no candidate receives a majority — 270 — of the 538 electoral votes, then the next president will be chosen by the House of Representatives, with each state having one vote. It has happened twice in our history — the election of 1800 and then 1824. But given Congress’s current low repute — 9 percent approval rating in one poll — all hell would break loose if the House wound up selecting the next president. This scenario can happen only if there is a viable third-party candidate who wins at least some electoral votes. Most states still decide their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, so the third-party candidate would need to win a state or two, and the election would otherwise need to be close.

Delaware: Delaware Senate committee tables National Popular Vote legislation | The News Journal

An effort to award Delaware’s three Electoral College votes in presidential elections to the winner of the national popular vote stalled Wednesday in a Senate committee. The National Popular Vote legislation, House Bill 55, is part of a nationwide movement to change the Electoral College’s perceived flaws from the 2000 presidential contest in which Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

Massachusetts: Ware to consider backing legislation changing how Massachusetts awards Electoral College votes | masslive.com

The town has asked other small towns across the state, including Ware and Whately, to back state legislation that could impact the way presidential contests are decided, but similar bills in other states have been lightning rods for partisan anger.

House Bill 00200, sponsored by state Rep. Robert M. Koczera, D-New Bedford, would make it possible for the state to split its 11 Electoral College votes between candidates. The legislation calls for each Congressional district to choose an elector and for two electors-at-large to represent the whole state. This matches the number of congressmen and senators. Erving selectmen contend the bill would add weight to each person’s vote.

National: Americans Elect Makes Plans to Broker the 2012 Presidential Election | Irregular Times

Richard Winger and Mark B. identify a revealing section of the Americans Elect corporate bylaws recently posted online by the states of Nevada and Florida. The Americans Elect corporation, which aims to arrange the election of its own candidates for President and Vice President of the United States, imagines a circumstance in which Americans Elect [“AE”] wins one or more states but not enough to win the presidency for itself. What will its designated electors do then?

Elector agrees that Elector shall remain unpledged until convening of votes for the Electoral College, with the exception of the following conditions:

a. Plurality or Majority Vote for AE Ticket: If the AE ticket receives more votes nationally than any other ticket, the Elector shall solely vote in the affirmative for the AE nominees and for no other candidate;

b. Coalition Agreement: If the AE ticket receives fewer popular votes nationally than the ticket of at least one of the major political parties but no party has attained a majority of the national popular vote and the AE delegates have convened in the Convention after the general election but before the Electoral College vote and endorsed a candidate of either major political party on such terms as may be reflected in the vote of endorsement, the Elector shall vote solely for the candidates as instructed by the Delegates and for no other candidate.

Under the law, of course, presidential electors are free to support whichever candidate they please. But according to the bylaws, Americans Elect will require its electors to sign a contract agreeing to the above plan or to pay a penalty of half a million dollars:

National: McConnell warns of popular vote ‘catastrophic outcome’ | NBC

Addressing what he called “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned Wednesday that the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution — without anybody even noticing, unfortunately, what they’re up to.”

The National Popular Vote is a compact among state legislatures under which they pledge that they’ll award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, even if that candidate was not the majority choice of their state’s voters.

So far, California, seven other states, and the District of Columbia (all of which have large Democratic majorities) have passed legislation taking the National Popular Vote pledge. Those states and D.C. account for 132 electoral votes. The compact says it is to take effect when states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes have agreed to it.

National: GOP Nonprofit Backs Electoral College | Roll Call

An obscure but well-funded campaign to reinvent the Electoral College and elect the president via a national popular vote has alarmed GOP leaders, who have mounted a counterattack with the help of a newly revived nonprofit. The fight over the Electoral College is “the most important issue in America nobody’s talking about,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a Wednesday forum co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the State Government Leadership Foundation, a GOP-friendly nonprofit that has recently unveiled a new website and ramped up its operations.

The National Popular Vote campaign would replace the Electoral College system, which assigns electors to states based on the size of their Congressional delegations and requires a candidate to win at least 270 of 538 electoral votes to become president. Eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that would instead deliver their Electoral College slates to the candidate who won the most popular votes nationwide. The laws will go into effect when enough states pass similar legislation to break the 270-vote threshold.

Pennsylvania: Corbett: Change in electoral votes going nowhere | Philly.com

A Republican-sponsored proposal to change how Pennsylvania’s electoral votes are counted in next year’s presidential election appears to be running out of steam. Gov. Corbett, a key supporter of the idea, suggested Monday that it was going nowhere for the time being. “I see no movement on it. I’m not going to push for movement, but I still support it,” Corbett, a Republican, told a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon.

The proposal surfaced in September, with Corbett marketing it as a way to more fairly divide electoral votes to reflect the preferences of Pennsylvania’s voters. It split Republicans and drew heavy criticism from Democrats, who called it a partisan attempt to hurt President Obama’s reelection campaign and to minimize the influence of the state’s large number of registered Democrats.

Wisconsin: Republican proposal would change how electoral college votes are awarded in Wisconsin | The Washington Post

A Republican lawmaker in Wisconsin wants to change how Wisconsin awards electoral votes — a proposal that spurred a swift, negative reaction Wednesday from Democrats who see the move as an attempt to help Republican presidential candidates.

Wisconsin joins at least two other states where changes to how Electoral College votes are being discussed heading into the 2012 presidential election. The 10 electoral votes in Wisconsin, which has a winner-take-all system, went to President Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

Wisconsin state Rep. Dan LeMahieu on Wednesday circulated a proposal for co-sponsors that make so a single electoral vote would go to the winner in each of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts. The statewide winner would get two electoral votes.

National: Republicans Eye Electoral Vote Changes | Time Magazine

Republicans in Pennsylvania and Nebraska want to change the way their states award Electoral College votes, moves that could hinder President Barack Obama’s re-election chances.

Lawmakers in the Democratic-leaning battleground of Pennsylvania are weighing whether to give the presidential nominees one electoral vote for each congressional district they win, rather than giving all its votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote, like Obama did in 2008. In GOP-tilting Nebraska, lawmakers want to go to a winner-take-all system four years after Obama won the 2nd Congressional District and its single electoral college vote.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency out of 538 up for grabs. Every vote matters in a close election and every sign points to a competitive 2012 race as an incumbent Democratic president who most people still personally like tries to win a second term in tough economic times.

Editorials: Pennsylvania, Nebraska Republicans want opposite electoral vote changes | Detroit News Online

Republicans in Pennsylvania and Nebraska want to change the way their states award Electoral College votes, moves that could hinder President Barack Obama’s re-election chances. Lawmakers in the Democratic-leaning battleground of Pennsylvania are weighing whether to give the presidential nominees one electoral vote for each congressional district they win, rather than giving all its votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote, like Obama did in 2008. In GOP-tilting Nebraska, lawmakers want to go to a winner-take-all system four years after Obama won the 2nd Congressional District and its single electoral college vote.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency out of 538 up for grabs. Every vote matters in a close election and every sign points to a competitive 2012 race as an incumbent Democratic president who most people still personally like tries to win a second term in tough economic times.

“Any electoral vote is important in these elections,” said Michael Mezey, a professor of political science at DePaul University in Chicago. “When you start dealing with large states, it can make a difference. And also you’re not just dealing with Pennsylvania; other states may follow suit.”

Pennsylvania: Possible Change In Electoral Vote Stirs Passion | WTAE Pittsburgh

A proposal supported by Gov. Tom Corbett to change the way Pennsylvania’s electoral votes will be counted in next year’s presidential election stirred up pointed criticism at a legislative hearing Tuesday, including a complaint that it would subvert Philadelphia’s large bloc of minority voters.

Two prominent political scientists also said the proposal was sure to reduce voter turnout, destroy Pennsylvania’s status as a battleground that draws the attention of presidential candidates and weaken an already flawed electoral voting system by relying on a gerrymandered map of congressional districts.

The committee chairman, Sen. Charles McIlhinney, a Republican from Bucks County in suburban Philadelphia, said after the hearing that he himself has not made up his mind and acknowledged that some voters would benefit while others would lose.

Pennsylvania: Winner Wouldn’t Take All as Pennsylvania Republicans Eye Electoral Votes | Bloomberg

Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to eliminate the winner-take-all system for electoral votes, a move that might boost their presidential candidate’s chances in a state that picked the Democrat in the past five races.

With the backing of Republican Governor Tom Corbett, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi has proposed a plan, similar to ones under consideration in four other states, that would apportion 18 of Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes according to victory in congressional districts.

This would assure the Republican of some votes because of boundaries drawn to preserve party dominance, said Chris Borick, a political-science professor and director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown. The move comes as Republicans across the country are fighting to tighten voting rules.

Editorials: Vote suppression in the US revs up | Al Jazeera English

In the 1964 presidential elections, a young political operative named Bill guarded a largely African-American polling place in South Phoenix, Arizona like a bull mastiff. Bill was a legal whiz who knew the ins and outs of voting law and insisted that every obscure provision be applied, no matter what. He even made those who spoke accented English interpret parts of the constitution to prove that they understood it. The lines were long, people fought, got tired or had to go to work, and many of them left without voting. It was a notorious episode long remembered in Phoenix political circles.

It turned out that it was part of a Republican Party strategy known as “Operation Eagle Eye”, and “Bill” was future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. He was confronted with his intimidation tactics in his confirmation hearings years later, and characterised his behaviour as simple arbitration of polling place disputes. In doing so, he set a standard for GOP dishonesty and obfuscation surrounding voting rights that continues to this day.

This week, in one of its greatest acts of elective chutzpah yet, Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania set forth a plan to split the state’s electoral votes for president proportionally by congressional district. This is not illegal, or even unprecedented. Two other states have this system. And some people have been arguing for years that the whole country should abolish the Electoral College altogether in order to avoid such undemocratic messes as the 2000 election. Many of them have settled on the idea of all states simultaneously adopting the system of alloting electoral votes proportionally instead of winner-take-all as a sort of compromise. But that’s not what’s happening here.

Editorials: Vote suppression in the US revs up | Al Jazeera English

In the 1964 presidential elections, a young political operative named Bill guarded a largely African-American polling place in South Phoenix, Arizona like a bull mastiff. Bill was a legal whiz who knew the ins and outs of voting law and insisted that every obscure provision be applied, no matter what. He even made those who spoke accented English interpret parts of the constitution to prove that they understood it. The lines were long, people fought, got tired or had to go to work, and many of them left without voting. It was a notorious episode long remembered in Phoenix political circles.

It turned out that it was part of a Republican Party strategy known as “Operation Eagle Eye”, and “Bill” was future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. He was confronted with his intimidation tactics in his confirmation hearings years later, and characterised his behaviour as simple arbitration of polling place disputes. In doing so, he set a standard for GOP dishonesty and obfuscation surrounding voting rights that continues to this day.

This week, in one of its greatest acts of elective chutzpah yet, Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania set forth a plan to split the state’s electoral votes for president proportionally by congressional district. This is not illegal, or even unprecedented. Two other states have this system. And some people have been arguing for years that the whole country should abolish the Electoral College altogether in order to avoid such undemocratic messes as the 2000 election. Many of them have settled on the idea of all states simultaneously adopting the system of alloting electoral votes proportionally instead of winner-take-all as a sort of compromise. But that’s not what’s happening here.

Editorials: The Old Electoral College Switcheroo: The Devastating Consequences of Pennsylvania’s Proposal to Game the Electoral College | Joshua Spivak/Huffington Post

With a close 2012 presidential race approaching, Republican-dominated legislature is now looking to deliver a big blow to President Obama’s electoral strategy. The state is debating whether to switch its allocation of its Electoral College votes from the winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state to the congressional district-based system of dividing votes.

The result of such a switch could seriously damage Obama’s chances of reelection. He won 21 electoral votes in Pennsylvania in 2008. Under the district-based system, he would have only won 11. But the effect on 2012 is not the real problem with such a switch — instead it could cause a quadrennial havoc and serve as another body blow to any public confidence in the electoral system.

The Electoral College has already come under massive criticism following the 2000 presidential debacle, with numerous legislative attempts to revamp or junk the College. Whatever the merits of the complaints, one of the positives of the system is that most voters may view the Electoral College as a simple process — win a state, win its votes. However, the winner-take-all, also known as the “Unit Rule,” allocation method of the Electoral College is not mandatory. It is used by forty-eight states. But the other two, Nebraska and Maine, hand out two votes to the winner of the state, and give the rest of their votes (combined, they have nine) to the winner of each congressional district. And only once, in 2008 when Obama won one vote in Nebraska, have those two states split their vote.

Pennsylvania: House GOP fret over new electoral plan | Politico.com

A proposal to change how Pennsylvania awards its electoral college votes is pitting state government leaders in Harrisburg against fellow Republicans in Congress.

Though Pennsylvania’s a perennial swing state, it hasn’t been won by a Republican since 1988. But a proposal rolled out this week by the state Senate leader and quickly supported by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett would switch from the current winner-takes-all system to awarding most of Pennsylvania’s electoral college votes according to the winner of each congressional district, virtually assuring Republicans some of Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.

With next year’s presidential election expected to be hard-fought, even sapping some electoral support from Barack Obama in Pennsylvania could have a major impact on the national results. But to several Republicans in marginal districts, the plan has a catch: they’re worried that Democrats will move dollars and ground troops from solid blue districts to battlegrounds in pursuit of electoral votes — and in the process, knock off the Republicans currently in the seats.

Pennsylvania: Change proposed for state’s electoral vote process | Post-Gazette

A new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state’s role in next year’s presidential race. Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state’s “winner-takes-all” approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he’s suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

So far, the idea has received support from colleagues of the Delaware County Republican in the state House and from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. But Democrats, who have carried the state in presidential contests since 1992, said the shift would erode Pennsylvania’s clout.