Proportional allotment of electoral votes actually fits more in line with the Democrat desire to go with a popular only vote. States have the right to allot votes in an all or nothing manner or go proportional. I am not sure why this is such a bad thing for the GOP to be pushing.
All I've seen proposed is to allot electoral votes by congressional district, not by popular vote. A state like Pennsylvania, where the popular majority has voted Democrat for decades but most districts are Republican, would have probably seen the majority of its electoral votes go to Romney last election.
I never said they were pushing the popular vote, only noting that the congressional district method is closer to the former than the current winner takes all method.
The end result could be more battleground states. It could also alleviate the focus so much on states such as Florida (not entirely so, but reduction at all would be a positive step).
The end result could be more battleground states. It could also alleviate the focus so much on states such as Florida (not entirely so, but reduction at all would be a positive step).
The problem with the district method is that it relies on non-static boundaries defined by the states themselves, easily subject to gerrymandering. The winner-take-all system is flawed, but at least it represents the will of each state; the way some states have their congressional districts drawn up, a candidate could easily take a sizable majority of the electoral votes while losing the popular vote.
"Defined by the states themselves." It is the right of each state to select how it participates in a presidential election. I keep hearing that the GOP is gerrymandering but have yet to see any effects of it leaning their way in any significant manner.
I specifically avoided mentioning parties for a reason, but if you want an example of Republicans trying to game the system, look at Pennsylvania: as a state which has voted blue for the past two decades despite being a swing state, Obama won with 52% of the vote. However, looking at a map of the county-by-county voter count [link], Obama won a relatively small area of the state. Looking at the present congressional districts of the state [link] we can see the areas Obama won -- who, again, won the state -- maybe 6 districts total out of 18, and a total of 8 electoral votes out of 20. In other words, his 52% of the Pennsylvania vote would have won him 40% of the electoral vote. Does that look like an honest election?
![[link]](https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Pennsylvania_congressional_districts_by_party.png){kind=link}
Neither of those links show me the district electoral results, only counties.
Abnormalities like this exist because there is no way of reconciling every contingency. Considering that each district in PA consists of about 646K citizens, and the average vote per district would have been about 290K (I do not have time right now to research the actual registered versus votes by district) this would mean that mean that Obama won the state in heavy voting districts that outweighed districts where fewer voters hit the polls. Those red districts obviously had fewer voters show up at the polls and let the other districts choose their president (for all intents and purposes). In my opinion, the GOP would fair better by working more on getting out their voters to the polls, something the Dems very good at in recent presidential elections.
Abnormalities like this exist because there is no way of reconciling every contingency. Considering that each district in PA consists of about 646K citizens, and the average vote per district would have been about 290K (I do not have time right now to research the actual registered versus votes by district) this would mean that mean that Obama won the state in heavy voting districts that outweighed districts where fewer voters hit the polls. Those red districts obviously had fewer voters show up at the polls and let the other districts choose their president (for all intents and purposes). In my opinion, the GOP would fair better by working more on getting out their voters to the polls, something the Dems very good at in recent presidential elections.
They're only pushing for it in the States they lost.
It's not a proactive attempt to objectively improve voting, it's just an attempt to swing votes their way in lost States.
It's not a proactive attempt to objectively improve voting, it's just an attempt to swing votes their way in lost States.
And that is a legitimate course of action. Do it at the state level and focus on the states that they benefit the most from.
Vote rigging is not legitimate
How is it vote rigging?
I'd prefer the proportional elector method. It shouldn't effect the outcome of an election but it will give more of an idea of where the country stands with the candidate.
I do not for the simple reason that it is essentially a match to the popular vote. Congressional district methodology at least gives each state some form of representation in a presidential election.
What's wrong with that? Either way the majority will win. 
We would need to amend the US Constitution. It currently dictates that the electoral votes are used to elect the President, not the popular vote. This gives the individual states certain rights and influence in selecting a national leader, as designed by that pesky Constitution.
Unless I misread what you said, I thought you said you didn't like the idea of all of the states awarding the number of electors proportionality to the popular vote. Some states do it already while most are an all or nothing.
I am perfectly fine with states using the congressional district method or the winner takes all. I am not a supporter of a popular vote to elect our national executives.