The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

So it appears as if some Republicans are trying to alter the winner-take-all-electoral-vote model to the win-by-congressional-district model in some Democratic-leaning or battleground states that President Obama won in the 2012 presidential election. These states include: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), and Florida (29) - worth a combined 106 electoral votes. Due to Republican gerrymandering, this would have propelled Mitt Romney to the presidency this past election, even though he lost the overall vote by close to five million. With this new model, even though Obama defeated Romney by close to four percentage points in the state of Virginia in November, he would have netted just four of the state's thirteen electoral votes. That's right. In a state where Obama won by roughly 150,000 votes, Romney would have won 9 electoral votes to the president's 4. Make sense? I didn't think so. If the Republican Party is able to get away...

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 co...