So I ran for Congress in 2010 in the Republican Primary. Don’t worry if you didn’t hear about that–nobody did. I didn’t raise much money and I ran against somebody who had all kinds of money backing their terrible record. Oh, well.
But I bring that up (again) to point out just how innovative of a campaign that I ran on the policy front. One of my main policy positions was subsequently adopted by Republican nominee Mitt Romney as one of his “Day 1” agenda items, that of reforming corporate tax policy. Interestingly enough, my own opponent introduced the same after being sworn in again. So did U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN).
Now U.S. Senator-Elect Ted Cruz, replacing retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, is advocating a 4-point plan to reform Social Security. I developed an identical proposal during grad school. 9 years ago!
So it is with immense pride that I illustrate why another of my policy positions would be so beneficial to this obviously biased Republican and former supporter of Mitt Romney’s–reforming the Electoral College to be by Congressional District instead of a “winner-take-all” tally by state. As it turns out, Mitt Romney would now be President-Elect and Barack Obama’s controversial 20-day Hawaiian vacation would be permanent according to Britain’s Daily Mail. Now, why is it that the Brits beat us Yanks to this observation?!?
The Daily Mail’s Toby Harnden reports that Mitt Romney won 222 Congressional Districts to Barack Obama’s 206. Seven districts are still being tallied.
My reasoning for this change is very simple–such large states as Texas and California are completely irrelevant to the November General Election. Texas goes Republican Red, California couldn’t be any bluer every four years. But each of these states contains Congressional Districts that consistently go the other way. Putting them up for grabs would make every state in-play each four years. And that means that candidates for this national office would actually have to present themselves in all 50 states in consideration for this office.
In addition, it means that each candidate could pick up individual Electoral College votes in places that right now they never will. Romney would have won votes in New York state and California; Obama in Texas.
I have been saying for years (since approximately 2000, for obvious reasons!) this should be done, again putting me at the ideological and political philosophical forefront of innovation.
Now, this would require an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And I’m reasonably certain that one major party would benefit radically more than the other (can you guess which?). So you can also imagine how much support there would be for this in Congress, which would have to vote two-thirds in both the House and the Senate before three-fourths of states would have to adopt it. And you could be certain that getting 37 states to vote for this would be pretty difficult despite the fact that the entire northeast would become relevant in elections.
Another consideration is that Democrats have a nasty history of not pursuing amendments to the constitution in forwarding their agenda. Want something? Just pass a statutory law and ram it through! Worked for FDR and LBJ. Worked for Obamacare, so why change now? No hope for that, see?
But anyway, interesting seeing your policy proposals and how they might change history. Or at least national elections.