After losing their second consecutive presidential election, I've heard many Republicans either lay down excuses as to why they lost ("If it hadn't have been for Hurricane Sandy, then...") or make suggestions on how they can win in the future.
One suggestion I've heard floating around and which was written about in the right-leaning National Review is that Republicans should push for more states to go by the congressional-district model as opposed to the winner-take-all one. In this very model or some version of it, Romney would have won in two of the three possible scenarios. Romney would have won, despite losing by a little less than five-million votes to Obama - losing to the president by around 3.5%.
Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. It would have been one thing if Mitt Romney won the popular vote in November, yet lost in the electoral college, and Republicans decided to push legislation on altering the electoral college to a popular vote contest. I could have understood that. However, when their nominee lost by nearly five-million votes and 3.5 percentage points nationwide, it makes absolutely no sense to skew the electoral model to rewarding the nominee on the short-end of that equation. While we're at it, let's reward home teams in football games 12 points for a touchdown as opposed to 6, 6 points for a field goal, 4 points for a safety, and 2 points for an extra point. That way, if the home team loses, it will be because they REALLY deserved it.
The Republican Party - the party defending our freedoms, unless we don't agree with them. The Republican Party - critical of rewarding kids with trophies for participating in elementary school competitions, yet willing to hand the largest trophy in the land to the losing nominee of a presidential election.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko#
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/08/1177308/-NRO-Romney-would-have-won-if-we-had-just-changed-the-rules
One suggestion I've heard floating around and which was written about in the right-leaning National Review is that Republicans should push for more states to go by the congressional-district model as opposed to the winner-take-all one. In this very model or some version of it, Romney would have won in two of the three possible scenarios. Romney would have won, despite losing by a little less than five-million votes to Obama - losing to the president by around 3.5%.
Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. It would have been one thing if Mitt Romney won the popular vote in November, yet lost in the electoral college, and Republicans decided to push legislation on altering the electoral college to a popular vote contest. I could have understood that. However, when their nominee lost by nearly five-million votes and 3.5 percentage points nationwide, it makes absolutely no sense to skew the electoral model to rewarding the nominee on the short-end of that equation. While we're at it, let's reward home teams in football games 12 points for a touchdown as opposed to 6, 6 points for a field goal, 4 points for a safety, and 2 points for an extra point. That way, if the home team loses, it will be because they REALLY deserved it.
The Republican Party - the party defending our freedoms, unless we don't agree with them. The Republican Party - critical of rewarding kids with trophies for participating in elementary school competitions, yet willing to hand the largest trophy in the land to the losing nominee of a presidential election.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko#
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/08/1177308/-NRO-Romney-would-have-won-if-we-had-just-changed-the-rules
Comments
Post a Comment