2010 Congressional Reapportionment

Some of the first guesses are coming out as to the reapportionment subsequent to the 2010 census. Different guesses are out there, but the study by Election Data Services guesses:

+4: Texas
+2: Florida
+1: Washington, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina
-1: Iowa, Missouri, Illionois, Michigan, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts
-2: New York, Ohio

All others stay the same. Like I say, different studies give different estimates, but there are some common conclusions:
* Texas will be the big winner, with +3 to +4
* California will either stay the same or lose 1
* Midwest and Northeast to lose 6-8 seats to Florida and Texas (lost 10 in 2000 reapportionment)

Factoid #1: Applying 2010 apportionment to the 2000 election results (1990 reapportionment) means Bush would have had +7 electoral votes. Add that to the +7 after 2000 reapportionment and that makes Bush 285, Gore 252. In other words, it would still all boil down to Florida.

Factoid #2: 11 seats go to states where Republicans won the governorship in 2010, all of them holds. A minus-4 are taken away from where Democrats won, all of them holds. Further, minus-5 are taken from where Republicans won, all of them pick-ups. Also, minus-1 for New Jersey, which was a recent Republican pick-up. No 2010 gubernatorial elections in Missouri (-1, Democrat), Louisiana (-1, Republican), and Washington (+1, Democrat).

Factoid #3: Applying 2010 reapportionment to the 2008 election results means Obama would have had minus-6 electoral votes, still a clear majority of 359.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Some of the first guesses are coming out as to the reapportionment subsequent to the 2010 census. Different guesses are out there, but the study by Election Data Services guesses:

+4: Texas
+2: Florida
+1: Washington, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina
-1: Iowa, Missouri, Illionois, Michigan, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts
-2: New York, Ohio

All others stay the same. Like I say, different studies give different estimates, but there are some common conclusions:
* Texas will be the big winner, with +3 to +4
* California will either stay the same or lose 1
* Midwest and Northeast to lose 6-8 seats to Florida and Texas (lost 10 in 2000 reapportionment)

Factoid #1: Applying 2010 apportionment to the 2000 election results (1990 reapportionment) means Bush would have had +7 electoral votes. Add that to the +7 after 2000 reapportionment and that makes Bush 285, Gore 252. In other words, it would still all boil down to Florida.

Factoid #2: 11 seats go to states where Republicans won the governorship in 2010, all of them holds. A minus-4 are taken away from where Democrats won, all of them holds. Further, minus-5 are taken from where Republicans won, all of them pick-ups. Also, minus-1 for New Jersey, which was a recent Republican pick-up. No 2010 gubernatorial elections in Missouri (-1, Democrat), Louisiana (-1, Republican), and Washington (+1, Democrat).

Factoid #3: Applying 2010 reapportionment to the 2008 election results means Obama would have had minus-6 electoral votes, still a clear majority of 359.

All good points. Take it a step farther:

The new TX seats will likely be split 2-2 (or 2-1 R) depending on the exact lines around DFW and Houston.
The new FL seats will go 1-1, 1 in Fort Lauderdale/Boca (Dish) and 1 in the Tampa area (Rish).
WA will create a fringe D seat, NV will *probably* be the same but closer to parity.
Utah and AZ will create safe R districts. If Utah does things right, they'll also district out the current safe D district.
GA and SC are harder to predict, since they're deep red states with growth in purple areas.
IA will probably cut one of the rural D seats, but the best avenue to do that blues an outstate red district. Same with MO, MI, PA, and NJ. Blue seats are likely to be cut, but the result is a purpling of at least one remaining seat.
LA will be really interesting, since there is only 1 competitive house district now.
MA couldn't matter less, since there are no competitive house districts (but there might be a primary between two sitting Congressmen to see who continues on)
NY will probably lose 1-1, depending on the exact redistricting upstate - particularly in northeast NY. It's very hard to cover NY's geography and balance the population per district without drawing ridiculous lines and/or giving the Dems every seat.
OH probably will (and probably should) drop two outstate D seats. OH is a very odd state politically, and is home to the largest city in America (Cincinnati, soon to be Columbus) that is solely represented by Republicans.

Quote: rdw4potus

All good points. Take it a step farther:

The new TX seats will likely be split 2-2 (or 2-1 R) depending on the exact lines around DFW and Houston.
The new FL seats will go 1-1, 1 in Fort Lauderdale/Boca (Dish) and 1 in the Tampa area (Rish).
WA will create a fringe D seat, NV will *probably* be the same but closer to parity.
Utah and AZ will create safe R districts. If Utah does things right, they'll also district out the current safe D district.
GA and SC are harder to predict, since they're deep red states with growth in purple areas.
IA will probably cut one of the rural D seats, but the best avenue to do that blues an outstate red district. Same with MO, MI, PA, and NJ. Blue seats are likely to be cut, but the result is a purpling of at least one remaining seat.
LA will be really interesting, since there is only 1 competitive house district now.
MA couldn't matter less, since there are no competitive house districts (but there might be a primary between two sitting Congressmen to see who continues on)
NY will probably lose 1-1, depending on the exact redistricting upstate - particularly in northeast NY. It's very hard to cover NY's geography and balance the population per district without drawing ridiculous lines and/or giving the Dems every seat.
OH probably will (and probably should) drop two outstate D seats. OH is a very odd state politically, and is home to the largest city in America (Cincinnati, soon to be Columbus) that is solely represented by Republicans.

Maybe, but since how the new districts are drawn is left up to the states, it gets really hard to predict how they're going to do it. For example, I live in Texas, a state which is about 60-40 Republican (although the gain in population has moderated it somewhat - they have to come from somewhere - so it may be more like 58-42 or 55-45, but in any event, a very red state).

Before 2000 redistricting, the delegation from Texas was about 50:50 Democrat to Republican. Since Republicans held the governorship and both state houses in 2001, they made the new lines, and the resulting delegation was 2:1 for Republicans. In other words, Texas's 2 new seats not only both went Republican, but the redistricting procedure swung the "imbalance pendulum" to the red side of the spectrum.

The influence of Republican governors in other states, especially pick-ups in long-held Democratic seats, will, I think, be similar. There's a pretty uniform political appetite for more Republicans, based on the 2010 election results, and I think the new governors and the newly-elected Republican state houses, will be sensitive to that.

I don't know how the elections went for all these states gaining seats and electoral votes. But I do know that, generally speaking, the governor has to approve the redistricting plan, so there will be Republican influence in all these redistricting efforts. Whether it turns more 50:50 states into 2:1 states remains to be seen, but will be interesting for the 2012 House elections.

I'm surprised to see NV as +1, because we just went from 2 to 3 in 2000. There was a lot of fighting about how to draw the new district lines. It would have been easy to draw the boundaries to have two Republican seats and one Democrat, or vise versa. I don't know what decision making body had the final authority, but neither side had the votes to get the extra seat. So they made the third district 50/50, and it has changed parties a few times since inception. The other two seats are one firmly red (northern Nevada) and one firmly blue (central Las Vegas). The 50/50 3rd district is some suburbs of Vegas and more or less the balance of Clark County.

Nevada congressional district map.

Say, not trying to hijack a thread...but when did the colors change? I remeber as a young lad, Reagan clobbering Mondale, and the whole of the US, save Minnesota, was blue.

Again, sorry.

Quote: avargov

Say, not trying to hijack a thread...but when did the colors change? I remeber as a young lad, Reagan clobbering Mondale, and the whole of the US, save Minnesota, was blue.

Again, sorry.

I don't know for sure, but ...

I also remember it switching from election to election in the distant past. But, and I think this was around 1992 or 1994, when "red" still held heavy connotations of Soviet communism, Democrats objected to the use of the color "red" as descriptive of them since it, in their minds, associated them with communism.

Ironically, Democrats, despite their color of choice, are more closely tied to communism than Republicans, to whom the tag "red" has stuck. If that story is true, I think that just goes to show that the Democrats made a mountain out of a molehill.

But again, I don't know for sure.

Quote: Wizard

I'm surprised to see NV as +1, because we just went from 2 to 3 in 2000. There was a lot of fighting about how to draw the new district lines. It would have been easy to draw the boundaries to have two Republican seats and one Democrat, or vise versa. I don't know what decision making body had the final authority, but neither side had the votes to get the extra seat. So they made the third district 50/50, and it has changed parties a few times since inception. The other two seats are one firmly red (northern Nevada) and one firmly blue (central Las Vegas). The 50/50 3rd district is some suburbs of Vegas and more or less the balance of Clark County..

The population estimates for 2009 have Nevada about 3.74 out of 435 (simple proportion). That should be high enough to push Nevada to a 4th congressional seat, but it is not a lock. If Nevada lost some people in the last year, or the estimates are slightly off (which frequently happens) then Nevada could miss the mark and not get a seat.

California looks like it won't get a new congressional seat. They have received at least one after every census since their original 2 for statehood in 1850
+1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +3 +9 +3 +7 +8 +5 +2 +7 +1

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Maybe, but since how the new districts are drawn is left up to the states, it gets really hard to predict how they're going to do it. For example, I live in Texas, a state which is about 60-40 Republican (although the gain in population has moderated it somewhat - they have to come from somewhere - so it may be more like 58-42 or 55-45, but in any event, a very red state).

Before 2000 redistricting, the delegation from Texas was about 50:50 Democrat to Republican. Since Republicans held the governorship and both state houses in 2001, they made the new lines, and the resulting delegation was 2:1 for Republicans. In other words, Texas's 2 new seats not only both went Republican, but the redistricting procedure swung the "imbalance pendulum" to the red side of the spectrum.

The influence of Republican governors in other states, especially pick-ups in long-held Democratic seats, will, I think, be similar. There's a pretty uniform political appetite for more Republicans, based on the 2010 election results, and I think the new governors and the newly-elected Republican state houses, will be sensitive to that.

I don't know how the elections went for all these states gaining seats and electoral votes. But I do know that, generally speaking, the governor has to approve the redistricting plan, so there will be Republican influence in all these redistricting efforts. Whether it turns more 50:50 states into 2:1 states remains to be seen, but will be interesting for the 2012 House elections.

Some states redistrict by legislation, some redistrict by bi-partisan commission. The Governor always needs to sign off, but the generally accepted protocol is for the Governor to rubber-stamp a commission drafted plan.

For legisltatively driven plans, the majority party can try to do things in one of two ways:
1. the Texas method. Cut out the heart of the minority party, and somewhat mute the will of the people. Republicans are now over-represented in Texas.
2. the Concilliation method. Divide and protect as many evenly populated districts as possible, leaving only a small number of swing districts. Using my homestate as an example, Minnesota has only 2 swing districts (in 8 seats), and the others were drawn to be safe (Jim Oberstar lost in the MN8th from a very safe position).

For commission drafted plans, Concilliation is almost always the chosen method. Commission drafted plans also tend to have slightly less ridiculous lines than legislation driven plans. But, via any method, it is amazingly difficult to draw districts that are population balanced, geographically sensitive, and not utterly stupidly shaped (look at a district map of NY, PA, or AZ to see some really comically drawn lines).

As far as the "new" districts go, there are both primary and secondary effects to consider. Florida is probably the clearest example of how things will daisy chain. Growth in Tampa and the Orlando area are responsible for the increased seats. Both areas have relatively geographically logical districts currently, but those districts are now over populated. To me, the easiest solution is to physically shrink the existing districts to rebalance the populations (shrink CD 10 and CD8 and rebalance). To me, the likely result of the population rebalancing creates a new space for a district inland north and west of Fort Lauderdale and a space for a new district inland east of the 10th (west of the 8th) in the Tampa exurban area.

Looking at AZ's gain, it's the Phoenix 'burbs that have grown to require increased representation. But, reducing the size of only the 3rd, 5th, and 6th districts results in an under-population in the suburban districts. So the solution has to involve cutting a bit of the population from the 1st and probably 8th districts. Those are fairly safe Dem districts, so the result will slightly purple what would otherwise be a safe red additional seat.

Conversely, looking at Iowa's loss, I have utterly no idea how they'll cut a district without majorly changing the state's political landscape. Iowa has many bluish smallish large cities (Ames, Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Davenport) and only one large city (Des Moines). Right now, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts are solid blue and anchored by large cities (Des Moines, Cedar Falls/Waterloo, and Cedar Rapids). The 4th and 5th are redder and more rural, though the 4th does contain Ames which blues it somewhat. Iowa's now fully red state legislature and state house will need to keep the populations balanced and cut a district without hurting their chances to elect republican representatives. That task will be very very hard, since there are no logical lines to draw to concentrate the blue areas - it's not like they can just segregate the dems like in MN4 or MN5 (or, to be fair, segregate the GOP like in MN 2 or MN 6).

As may be becoming aparent, while others at public policy school were studying road design and infrastructure, I was (chasing girls and) studying political game theory and human geography. And now my job has nothing at all to do with my degree. Figures, I guess.

Quote: rdw4potus

1. the Texas method. Cut out the heart of the minority party, and somewhat mute the will of the people. Republicans are now over-represented in Texas.

To be fair, Texas pretty much became Republican in 1994, even though there were some pre-cursors before then. I'm pretty sure George W. was the first Republican governor to win re-election in 1998. Texas, like the other former Confederate states, was solidly Democrat for generations after the Civil War ... that whole "Lincoln was a Republican" thing. So, while Republicans are over-represented right now, it should be thought of as the Texas way, and not the Republican way. Democrats did the same thing since Reconstruction, and in fact, Democrats wrote the Texas redistricting rules. After all, 50:50 is over-representation for Democrats when the population is 60:40. Only when those rules didn't favor their representation did Democrats complain. The 2001 reapportionment was the Republicans' first time ever with complete control over Texas redistricting.

And for what its worth and I hope only slightly off-topic, can anyone provide a reasonable
argument why the small states should still be so vastly over-represented per capita in the
Senate ?

I'll change that when I get to be king for a day.

Quote: JohnnyQ

And for what its worth and I hope only slightly off-topic, can anyone provide a reasonable
argument why the small states should still be so vastly over-represented per capita in the
Senate ?

I'll change that when I get to be king for a day.

I agree that the original reasons - even the founding fathers were afraid of being shafted by the North East - no longer really apply. But, if it makes you feel better, those same states are quite under-represented in the House. (MT, SD, and DE all have over 800,000 residents per U.S. Rep, the average of the other 47 states is about 650,000)

And then there's D.C. - You know things are bad when the license plates are printed with "taxation without representation" on them...

Quote: JohnnyQ

And for what its worth and I hope only slightly off-topic, can anyone provide a reasonable
argument why the small states should still be so vastly over-represented per capita in the
Senate ?

I'll change that when I get to be king for a day.

July 16, 1787 was the day that they decided to give the small states two senators apiece, and to go ahead with the proportional House of Representatives. The decision was called The Great Compromise and it only passed by a single vote. The operative term here is compromise since without this decision there probably wouldn't have been a nation.

state	1789	1793
DE	1	1
RI	1	2
GA	3	2
NH	3	4
NJ	4	5
CT	5	7
NC	5	10
SC	5	6
MD	6	8
NY	6	10
MA	8	14
PA	8	13
VA	10	19
VT		2
KT		2
TOTAL	65	105

Delaware briefly had a 2nd congressional seat after the 1810 census, but has remained at a single at-large congressional seat all other periods.

Quote: JohnnyQ

And for what its worth and I hope only slightly off-topic, can anyone provide a reasonable
argument why the small states should still be so vastly over-represented per capita in the
Senate ?

I thought when they were drafting the constitution that was a concession they had to give to the smaller states, who were complaining they would be trampled by the "tyranny of the majority" of the big states.

I don't begrudge the two senators per state, but I think the electoral votes are indeed unfair. Of course, I was more bothered by this when I lived in California than Nevada.

Quote: Wizard

I thought when they were drafting the constitution that was a concession they had to give to the smaller states,

Its so every state has an equal say in everything. If it went by population, we would be ruled by the most populace states, which is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid.

Quote: EvenBob

Its so every state has an equal say in everything. If it went by population, we would be ruled by the most populace states, which is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid.

They don't have an equal say. California has way more electoral votes and members in the House of Representatives than Wyoming. Per person, Wyoming has more of a say.

Quote: Wizard

I thought when they were drafting the constitution that was a concession they had to give to the smaller states, who were complaining they would be trampled by the "tyranny of the majority" of the big states.

I don't begrudge the two senators per state, but I think the electoral votes are indeed unfair. Of course, I was more bothered by this when I lived in California than Nevada.

The logical conclusion is to select the president by 435 votes with the winner of each congressional district getting one vote. The media rich 21st century has nothing to do with the concerns of 1787 where a candidate would be lucky to visit all the states.

It will never happen however. The big states will never give up their clout of being able to vote as a monolith.

Quote: Wizard

They don't have an equal say. California has way more electoral votes and members in the House of Representatives than Wyoming. Per person, Wyoming has more of a say.

I was talking about the Senate. Electoral votes don't mean anything when passing a bill.

With the off topic discussion: I wrote quite a bit but in the end I like our bicameral legislatures and think that the electoral college is superior to a popular vote. This is something political elites argue about but no matter what we'd come to an impasse and I have better things to do (I will argue about other things though).

On the topic: I'd like to point out that the states receiving more house seats tend to have little to no state income tax, are more business-friendly, and are closer to the Right-to-Work side of the aisle. In fact I just looked it up and Washington (my state) is the only non-RtW state and I'm pretty certain that even though we don't have that specific law we have something similar. In other words, people are leaving heavily taxed/unionized states to those that are "better" for the people and employers alike. This ties back to 50 individual states rather than one nation, but I'll stop before I get too off-topic.

Quote: pacomartin

The logical conclusion is to select the president by 435 votes with the winner of each congressional district getting one vote. The media rich 21st century has nothing to do with the concerns of 1787 where a candidate would be lucky to visit all the states.

It will never happen however. The big states will never give up their clout of being able to vote as a monolith.

As best I understand the guts of the process, the Constitution says only that 1) electors elect the President, 2) it's left up to the states as to how they pick their electors, and 3) the law frees the electors to vote (or not vote) for anyone they want to.

I think all the states have laws now that says the electors are chosen by the popular vote of the state, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. It would be just as legal if they picked names from a lottery or the governor hand-picked them or whatever, it's left up to the states. I think in the earlier elections, electors were chosen by the state houses. Practically speaking, any state official that advocates something other than popular vote selection would probably not ever gain enough support to do something else, but that doesn't mean it's not allowed.

I don't know exactly how the parties choose their slate of electors, but I think it's a combination of rewarding loyal workers and high officials. For example, in Texas 2008, our Republican electors included the Governor, the head of the state party, and I think George H. W. Bush (but I'd have to check it).

Lastly, electors are bound only by their promise. Look back through several elections and you'll see a stray EV every now and then, or an abstention. And, remember after the 2000 election, some Democrats were lobbying Republican electors to either abstain and deny GWB the majority, or to vote for Gore. It didn't happen, but there were efforts in that direction.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I think all the states have laws now that says the electors are chosen by the popular vote of the state, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. It would be just as legal if they picked names from a lottery or the governor hand-picked them or whatever, it's left up to the states. I think in the earlier elections, electors were chosen by the state houses. Practically speaking, any state official that advocates something other than popular vote selection would probably not ever gain enough support to do something else, but that doesn't mean it's not allowed.

A few of the smaller states select their electoral votes by each congressional district with the final two votes going to the winner of the popular vote statewide. They have never been able to get a larger state to change their procedures to something similar. No state is against the idea in theory, but no large state wants to be the first to switch since it puts them at a disadvantage against other large states using the all or nothing principal. Schwarzenegger briefly considered the idea but ultimately rejected it.

Wyoming has a population less than one standard congressional district. As a result it's voters essentially get their votes counted three times (for 3 electors). California gets one vote per each of the congressional districts + 2/435 votes for the last two senate seats.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As best I understand the guts of the process, the Constitution says only that 1) electors elect the President, 2) it's left up to the states as to how they pick their electors, and 3) the law frees the electors to vote (or not vote) for anyone they want to.

I think all the states have laws now that says the electors are chosen by the popular vote of the state, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. It would be just as legal if they picked names from a lottery or the governor hand-picked them or whatever, it's left up to the states. I think in the earlier elections, electors were chosen by the state houses. Practically speaking, any state official that advocates something other than popular vote selection would probably not ever gain enough support to do something else, but that doesn't mean it's not allowed.

I don't know exactly how the parties choose their slate of electors, but I think it's a combination of rewarding loyal workers and high officials. For example, in Texas 2008, our Republican electors included the Governor, the head of the state party, and I think George H. W. Bush (but I'd have to check it).

Lastly, electors are bound only by their promise. Look back through several elections and you'll see a stray EV every now and then, or an abstention. And, remember after the 2000 election, some Democrats were lobbying Republican electors to either abstain and deny GWB the majority, or to vote for Gore. It didn't happen, but there were efforts in that direction.

I'm a big fan of the way that Nebraska does things. They have 5 electoral votes, 1 for each congressional district and 1 for each senate seat. The senate-related electors will vote for the winner of the state popular vote. The congressional district-related electors vote for the popular vote winner in that district. To me, that is a much more fair way of apportioning electoral college votes than the winner-take-all system.

Quote: rdw4potus

I'm a big fan of the way that Nebraska does things. They have 5 electoral votes, 1 for each congressional district and 1 for each senate seat. The senate-related electors will vote for the winner of the state popular vote. The congressional district-related electors vote for the popular vote winner in that district. To me, that is a much more fair way of apportioning electoral college votes than the winner-take-all system.

There is an organization called National Popular vote that is trying to get the states to all adopt this plan.

Quote: JohnnyQ

And for what its worth and I hope only slightly off-topic, can anyone provide a reasonable
argument why the small states should still be so vastly over-represented per capita in the
Senate ?

I'll change that when I get to be king for a day.

Because it equals things out. The advantage of a bi-cameral system is that you get differen types of chambers. The House is designed to be the "fast" chamber. Can flip control every 2 years and rules to get things done fast. The Senate is designed to go sloooow, kind of like a parent to an unruly child.

As it turns out you need such a system to help keep the states equal. Say you had just the House of Representatives. (Put the legalistic arguments aside, assume the Constitution could and would be changed if needed.) Congress could make a "state tax" of $1 Billion per state for a project that benefited some states more than others. Say it was to "rebuild" the country's largest cities. Small states would not even qualify.

The Founding Fathers they were a smart bunch. Ever see the proposed EU Constitution compared to the US Constitution?

Quote: AZDuffman

The Founding Fathers they were a smart bunch. Ever see the proposed EU Constitution compared to the US Constitution?

As stated earlier the constitution does not specify the winner take all method for voting a states electoral votes. The states simply gravitate that way, because it makes the state more important. To quote Nelson Rockefeller, if we elected the president by popular vote all campaigning would be BOMFOG, meaning that candidates would only talk about the Brotherhood of Man, and the Fatherhood of God since there would be no reason to talk specifics.

But now we have a situation where no candidate can be bothered to travel to California. It is simply a waste of money for a republican candidate, and the last thing a democratic candidate needs is photos of him at a fund raiser in San Francisco circulating among the rural states.

It needs to be a populist movement, where people want to vote their congressional district. They want their vote to count if they live in a suburban community even if their is a megalopolis in the state. And vica versa. I am sure that people in Dallas want their vote heard despite the overwhelming size of the suburban and rural Texas.

Quote: pacomartin

As stated earlier the constitution does not specify the winner take all method for voting a states electoral votes. The states simply gravitate that way, because it makes the state more important. To quote Nelson Rockefeller, if we elected the president by popular vote all campaigning would be BOMFOG, meaning that candidates would only talk about the Brotherhood of Man, and the Fatherhood of God since there would be no reason to talk specifics.

But now we have a situation where no candidate can be bothered to travel to California. It is simply a waste of money for a republican candidate, and the last thing a democratic candidate needs is photos of him at a fund raiser in San Francisco circulating among the rural states.

It needs to be a populist movement, where people want to vote their congressional district. They want their vote to count if they live in a suburban community even if their is a megalopolis in the state. And vica versa. I am sure that people in Dallas want their vote heard despite the overwhelming size of the suburban and rural Texas.

The Constitution says electors are to be chosen "in a manner prescribed by the states" or somehting like that. CA actually had a bill to split up their votes with the "senator" electors going to the winner overall and then the districts would be split by district. I don't have the biggest problem with this espically in the big states. I do have a problem getting rid of the electoral college. The EC was set up so more votes matter and it works out that way.

Yes I know that California had a bill to change their procedure. But the governor killed it.

I actually think that most people could live with the change, but no "large" state wants to be the first to do it. They all feel like no one will pay attention to them if they do.

For instance both PA and OHIO are fought over every election like cats and dogs.

If PA votes to give one electoral vote for the winner of each of it's 19 congressional districts, then the only two that were close were the 3rd and the 12th.


In the last election McCain would have won 10 electoral college votes while Obama would have won 11 (9 districts and the 2 for winning the majority in the state).

Obama won PA by 620K votes, but he won Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by 580K votes.

The battleground congressional districts.

If you want to be the first to know the results of the apportionment 8AM manana Pacific Coast Time.