Secretary of State Jon Husted & other Republicans say Electoral College changes not in store for OH
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Secretary of State Jon Husted and other Republicans say Electoral College changes not in store for Ohio
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Count Ohio's Republican leaders out of a GOP-backed effort to end the Electoral College's winner-take-all format in the Buckeye State and other presidential battlegrounds.
Spokesmen for Gov. John Kasich, State Senate President Keith Faber and House Speaker William G. Batchelder told The Plain Dealer this week that they are not pursuing plans to award electoral votes proportionally by congressional district.
Batchelder went a step further, saying through his communications director that he "is not supportive of such a move." And Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted, the state's chief elections administrator, emphasized that he does not favor the plan either, despite Democratic suspicions based on reported comments that he said were taken out of context.
"Nobody in Ohio is advocating this," Husted said in a telephone interview.
Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/01/secretary_of_state_jon_husted_2.html
Victory For Democracy! Ohio Republicans Will Not Rig The Electoral College
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/29/1511561/victory-for-democracy-ohio-republicans-will-not-rig-the-electoral-college/
= new reply since forum marked as read
rather than risk all to get 18 Repub electoral votes at the risk of instead ending up with 18 Dem electoral votes. Even assuming a 70% probability of the Republican winning the state-wide vote, the new electoral scheme is a better bet (see below)
In my subject line, I'm assuming the same congressional district results in 2016 as in 2012.
(Remembering that in the map below, they are only showing the congressional districts -- 1 electoral vote per congressional district -- but each state gets 2 more electoral votes (1 for each senator). So for Ohio, for example, there are 16 congressional districts plus they (like all states) have 2 senators, for a total of 18 electoral votes.)
According to the new scheme, the 2 senatorial electoral votes will be allocated to the presidential candidate that wins the most congressional districts. So in Ohio's case, under the new electoral scheme, if 2016 came out like 2012 as far as congressional district results, the Repubs would get 12+2= 14 electoral votes, while the Dems would get 4 electoral votes.
So the probabilistic risk assessment is:
Say you are a RepubliCON and you are assuming a very optimisitic 70% chance of winning the Ohio state-wide popular vote
1. Stay with current electoral system.
=============================
. a. Repub candidate wins with 70% probability and gets 18 elec. votes
. b. Dem candidate wins with with 30% probability and gets 18 elec. votes
Probabilistic expected outcome: 70%*18 - 30%*18 = 7.2 R votes
2. Switch to new electoral scheme
=============================
(and pessimistically (from the Repub viewpoint) assume the same congressional district results as in 2012, when Obama won statewide by a 1.9% margin)
Repub candidates gets a net of 14 R -4 D = 10 R votes
So the new electoral scheme is likely to produce more electoral votes for the Republican candidate than the current system, even assuming a very high 7:3 odds that the Republican wins the statewide popular vote.
The below link shows 12 battleground states: Repubs have trifecta in 7 (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NC, Florida), Dems in 2 (Minnesota and Colorado), and split government in 3 (Nevada, Iowa, N.H.) -- Its a long long article. (trifecta means that one party has the governorship and both houses of the legislature)
https://www.freespeech.org/text/rigging-democracy
According to the above article, had such a plan (each congressional district's winner gets that electoral vote and the 2 senatorial electoral votes go to the winner of the most congressional districts) been enacted in 2012 in all seven swing states now under Republican control, Mitt Romney’s 126-vote defeat in the Electoral College would have been transformed into a 16-vote victory.
[font color=blue]"And some of these folks need a few democrats to vote for them if they want to be reelected. They'd be screwed royally on that one if they pulled a stunt like that." [/font]
I think that's the bigger consideration -- and besides a few Dem's votes, they need a good chunk of swing voters / independents (at least a slim majority of these) in order to win. Few of these voters likely would want to see their state's impact in a presidential election split and watered down.
the Governors and Senators of these States in your hypothetical scheme by Republican legislators. That scheme can be extended to Governor and Senatorial candidates who enjoy winning the popular votes of their states and not subject to the will of a minority.
2014 is an election year. Many Governors and Senators also come up on the Ballots. I assume the Governors of Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin should be facing an election soon. And wehen does the Michigan Governor face re-election? All those Governorships can turn Blue too. Governors have veto power, unless Legislatures can get enough votes to override them. So if they can't sneak their power grab through now, they may never sneak it through after the midterm turnover.
Me especially as are my very active democratic friends and leaders in Dayton Ohio....Like Dennis Lieberman...he was the BOE official fired in Montgomery County by Husted. Remember back in August when the battle of extended voting and the weekend option was front page news?
Husted is from Dayton...we know his behavior. 
