Well ... even back in the Bush Era, GOP was really a FrankenGOP: a) Social conservatives, b) Fiscal conservatives, c) Pro-MICE (military industrial congressional enterprise), d) Pro-Big Business. Notice that their agendas do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. For example, while the folks from (c) are into US military interventions, (b) are against it, while (d) largely do not care. The same with folks from (a). The other groups are not that much interested in social and religious conservatism. I think what eventually hurt GOP was the preponderance of social conservatives.
Considering the fact that the two states (Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996) that already use the Congressional District Method as an alternative to the winner take all methodology of the other 48 states and DC, only Barack Obama has split the vote in either state. Either this action by the GOP will not pan out as they hope or they recognize that states are beginning to buck the whole "solidarity" trend when it comes to presidential elections.
Actually, most states do allow certain restructuring of districts as long it is done outside the election cycle. Whether you could call every instance gerrymandering or not I suppose would be the debate.
Cry no crocodile tears over my party; we'll be fine. The American people know that when the GOP is all they have to defend their interests, we'll stand tall as we always have. Tightening election laws keeps minorities and other rifraff out of our voting booths where they can do real damage.
I think a proportional system is a good idea but it should be the same for all states. By all means use different systems in every state for elections just within that state but national elections should be the same process in every state.
You don't understand conservatism- the idea is that government should be controlled by them, therefore it must be structured to maintain their control. Rolling out to all states would jeapordize this, so they want to try and get it passed in states they lost in the last election, so they can manufacture a victory for themselves the way they did in 2000 and 2004 (and tried to for 2012 with government ID cards)
Proportional allotment of electoral votes actually fits more in line with the Democrat desire to go with a popular only vote. States have the right to allot votes in an all or nothing manner or go proportional. I am not sure why this is such a bad thing for the GOP to be pushing.
All I've seen proposed is to allot electoral votes by congressional district, not by popular vote. A state like Pennsylvania, where the popular majority has voted Democrat for decades but most districts are Republican, would have probably seen the majority of its electoral votes go to Romney last election.
The problem with the district method is that it relies on non-static boundaries defined by the states themselves, easily subject to gerrymandering. The winner-take-all system is flawed, but at least it represents the will of each state; the way some states have their congressional districts drawn up, a candidate could easily take a sizable majority of the electoral votes while losing the popular vote.
"Defined by the states themselves." It is the right of each state to select how it participates in a presidential election. I keep hearing that the GOP is gerrymandering but have yet to see any effects of it leaning their way in any significant manner.
I specifically avoided mentioning parties for a reason, but if you want an example of Republicans trying to game the system, look at Pennsylvania: as a state which has voted blue for the past two decades despite being a swing state, Obama won with 52% of the vote. However, looking at a map of the county-by-county voter count [link], Obama won a relatively small area of the state. Looking at the present congressional districts of the state [link] we can see the areas Obama won -- who, again, won the state -- maybe 6 districts total out of 18, and a total of 8 electoral votes out of 20. In other words, his 52% of the Pennsylvania vote would have won him 40% of the electoral vote. Does that look like an honest election?
Neither of those links show me the district electoral results, only counties.
Abnormalities like this exist because there is no way of reconciling every contingency. Considering that each district in PA consists of about 646K citizens, and the average vote per district would have been about 290K (I do not have time right now to research the actual registered versus votes by district) this would mean that mean that Obama won the state in heavy voting districts that outweighed districts where fewer voters hit the polls. Those red districts obviously had fewer voters show up at the polls and let the other districts choose their president (for all intents and purposes). In my opinion, the GOP would fair better by working more on getting out their voters to the polls, something the Dems very good at in recent presidential elections.
We would need to amend the US Constitution. It currently dictates that the electoral votes are used to elect the President, not the popular vote. This gives the individual states certain rights and influence in selecting a national leader, as designed by that pesky Constitution.
Unless I misread what you said, I thought you said you didn't like the idea of all of the states awarding the number of electors proportionality to the popular vote. Some states do it already while most are an all or nothing.
Making plans that are transparently petty, pathetic, shortsighted, and spits in the faces of the Framers they supposedly worship just slightly less than their God... yep, sounds like a day that ends in 'y' for the GOP.
I'm not of the cult mentality of the GOP. They act like the Framers were gods among men, which is why they're hypocrites to continually make proposals that would likely make those people weep if they were alive today to see what became of their ideas.
Why do they have to? Knowing that mitt romney of all people got 48% of the popular vote means if they could scrounge up even a semi likable person next time (unlike this time) maybe who pretends to not hate gays, it would be a sure victory.
Or are they admitting that doing that isn't their plan? Which would not be surprising.