Republican state legislatures are beginning a new strategy that could easily bite them latter on. They are dividing the electoral college delegates one to each district instead of giving the total to the winner of the whole state.
So in the case of Pennsylvania if it had been changed already, Obama who won all of Pennsylvania's electoral college votes this recent election would have only won three because most of the many voting districts went for Romney. Obama won the big cities with their heavy voting and Romney won the rural districts when combined Obama won the state. Under the new rules, Obama would have won the vote for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and one more for having the most votes, but all the rest of the delegates would have been given to Romney.
Several states now are considering going to this sort of delegate distribution. I'm sure that the republicans think that strategy will guarantee them better results but it could backfire on them. Note that this is not the same as simply accepting the popular vote for the winner. In effect it would be the opposite of that since it would allow the minority to overwhelm the majority.
In the previous instance of Pennsylvania the rural districts have about 1/2 of the votes of the two big cities and would reward the winner of those rural districts 13 delegates versus 3 for the actual candidate who has the most votes in the state. The case would be nearly the opposite in states like Texas where Obama got no delegates under the current rules but would get a sizable amount of delegates under the new rules.
So in the case of Pennsylvania if it had been changed already, Obama who won all of Pennsylvania's electoral college votes this recent election would have only won three because most of the many voting districts went for Romney. Obama won the big cities with their heavy voting and Romney won the rural districts when combined Obama won the state. Under the new rules, Obama would have won the vote for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and one more for having the most votes, but all the rest of the delegates would have been given to Romney.
Several states now are considering going to this sort of delegate distribution. I'm sure that the republicans think that strategy will guarantee them better results but it could backfire on them. Note that this is not the same as simply accepting the popular vote for the winner. In effect it would be the opposite of that since it would allow the minority to overwhelm the majority.
In the previous instance of Pennsylvania the rural districts have about 1/2 of the votes of the two big cities and would reward the winner of those rural districts 13 delegates versus 3 for the actual candidate who has the most votes in the state. The case would be nearly the opposite in states like Texas where Obama got no delegates under the current rules but would get a sizable amount of delegates under the new rules.