Proposal to Split Electoral Votes Gets Cold Reception

Despite unanimous committee opposition to a bill that would change Michigan’s winner-take-all method of allocating its 16 electoral votes, House Elections and Ethics Committee Chairwoman Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons declined the put controversial proposal to a vote.

Lyons, an Alto Republican, said she’s not sure when or if she will put the proposal to a vote before the committee, which heard testimony from 14 people, all of whom said splitting electoral votes based on major party candidates’ percentage of the vote was a bad idea.

But Lyons said the electoral college system is broken and changes are needed to make “Michigan matter more in terms of having our presidential candidates give Michigan voters attention on Michigan issues,” the Detroit Free Press reports.

Thomas Wieder, an attorney from Ann Arbor, said splitting votes would do little to give the Michigan more influence could dissuade presidential candidates from building organizations here.

“Presidential campaigns look to gain the biggest amount of electoral votes for the smallest amount of resources,” Wieder said. “Why build a state presidential campaign organization in a state of nearly 10 million people just to pick up a handful of electoral votes when you can go to a smaller winner-take-all state.”

Related:

• Proposed Legislation Could Turn Michigan Purple in 2016 Presidential Election

The bill introduced by state Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, would divvy the state’s 16 electoral votes between the winner and runner-up. The winner would receive nine electoral votes, plus one more for every 1.5 percent of votes over 50 percent.

Had such a system been in place in 2012, President Barack Obama would have received only 12 of Michigan’s electoral votes. Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who lost Michigan by 450,000 votes, would have received four.

Democrats generally oppose splitting Michigan’s electoral votes. House Minority Leader Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills, said last month that Lund’s bill rigs presidential elections in favor of Republicans, who haven’t won Michigan since 1988.

He also said that if the bill moved forward in the lame-duck system, it would be “toxic to the atmosphere in Lansing” and could jeopardize Democrats’ support for higher priority bills, such as road funding.