President Obama has signed 23 executive orders

[LoveLife&Laughter]

 ...designed to address the problem of gun violence in America. The following are the items addressed:

 

t does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition clips will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity.

[ProblemAgain]

so if you can't win within the rules, even with superpacs and the koch brothers and karl rove etc, change the rules.....

GOP eyes new election laws

By STEVE PEOPLES | Associated Press – 1 hr 34 mins ago

BOSTON (AP) — After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, these officials want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders support it, too, suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum. There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party's long-term political prospects.

"It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

Democrats are outraged at the potential change.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-eyes-election-laws-091622720--election.html

[exedir]

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic...but...winner take all has been around for a long time also as a maneuver around the intent of the electoral college.  Originally the president was to be elected by the "wise" in that the electors were elected to elect, if you catch my drift.  It went with the idea of a Rome republic where there were the plebs who had their house and then there would be others, worthies in their communities that would use their electoral powers to elect others, in the case of state legislatures, senators and in the case of the electoral college, the president and vice-president.  In the first case the legislatures demonstrated to be corrupt and the in the case of the college, not corrupt enough.  

Winner takes all was intended to skew a close election into a viable general selection and minimize the having the house decide the election in the case of a tie, which has happened.  Now how the electors are chosen is up to the states as are most of the issues of voter rules and eligibility subject to civil rights legislation and court ruling.  

Other than winner take all of course there would be proportionality allocation of electoral votes and the idea of using congressional districts within a state to determine electoral voters, er...I mean parties.  And finally of course, complete abolition of the college and replace it with popular vote, which would require a constitutional amendment that would never collect a 3/4 majority of states to ratify.

The other option under the Constitution is to call for another Constitutional Convention and start over.