Today, at the Impact Ohio conference, Jon Husted said something incredibly newsworthy that we haven’t seen reported anywhere.

Defending his performance managing Ohio’s election, Husted argued that because of the high stakes involved with being an electoral vote-rich swing state, Ohio’s elections chief is always scrutinized and criticized. (Funny, we don’t remember that happening in 2008, but that’s beside the point).

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

The reason for this is Ohio’s incredibly gerrymandered Congressional districts have been drawn to pack Democrats together so they have the majority in only 4 of the state’s 16 congressional districts. In addition to winning those four — assuming Husted would have us adopt the electoral vote allocation used by Maine and Nebraska, the only states to split their EVs by Congressional district — Obama would have also gotten the two at-large electoral votes bringing the final tally to 6 for Obama and 12 for Romney.

Outrageous right? Explained as a fix for the (he says undeserved) national attention he’s received, Jon Husted just put a plan on the table that would have handed Mitt Romney the majority of Ohio’s electoral sway.

And we thought with the election behind us, Jon Husted’s bad ideas were too. We were wrong.

Updated: partial audio and transcript is now available thanks to Ohio Public Radio.

For Ohioans who are tired of hearing Republicans and Democrats argue over election rules, the state’s top elections official has a theoretical solution. Secretary of State Jon Husted says Ohio could apportion its Electoral College votes in the presidential race in a proportional way, giving even the loser a big chunk of votes. That’s the way only two other states do it, but Husted says at least it would dampen partisan conflict because Ohio would no longer be such a prize.

Husted: “It will not be a winner-take-all state, and you would not have another elections controversy about Ohio because we would not matter as much anymore.”

Video of Thursday’s event should be online by early next week.

  • There’s really something wrong with you, and I hope you attempt to get some therapy. You sound like a deluded fool, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll leave it at just deluded. I won’t address any of your points because you didn’t make any. I will say that Mitt Romney started out with a $400,000 cushion from his old man; that’s not exactly “earning”. You obviously need a dictionary too.

  • KenKodger

    Romney gave every penny he inherited to charity. So ALL your knowledge and information is probably just as wrong! I know you will learn over time that Obama’s socialistic path is wrong but actually you should already have that understanding with even the most casual study of a failing Europe as the latest example! Your myopic look at history is your undoing!

  • dsantoshama

    I’m puzzled…can someone explain to me why Husted would want to adopt a change in elections law that would make our state irrelevant? Seriously.

  • Marlowe53

    Niall Ferguson is a handsome man with an appealing accent and the economic policy of a plutocrat. In his perfect world, the rich get richer on the backs of working people.
    If David Callahan said that (I couldn’t find such a quote), I disagree with him. However, I am prepared to pay higher taxes for the right reasons. As soon as the government stops giving the five largest and most successful energy companies and corporate farmers billions of dollars of breaks on their taxes, I’ll be first in line to vote to raise my taxes in order to obtain better schools for everyone and better healthcare for everyone.
    The problem is Greece is not their level of taxes. It’s that it’s considered socially acceptable for the most wealthy to NOT pay their taxes. It’s a country full of Mitt Romney’s

  • KenKodger

    Romney paid nearly $3,000,000 in income taxes in 2011 probably more in one year than you and your closest 10 buddies will ever pay in a life time. It is uninformed citizen like you who are heading us to become Greece. If everyone making over $250,000 a year were taxed at 50% it would run the government about 30 days.

    Furthermore The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney’s rate in 2010 — which was also about 14 percent — was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
    Your incorrect thinking is driving America into poverty!

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!