In America, we don't elect our presidents directly. Each state elects representatives to the Electoral College, which technically "elects" our president. For 224 years, Pennsylvania has joined virtually every other state in casting all of its electoral votes for the presidential candidate who won the state's popular vote. This has always made Pennsylvania a critical state in national elections because of the number of electoral votes we deliver.
On Monday, Gov. Corbett endorsed changing our system. He wants to award one electoral vote to a presidential candidate for each congressional district he or she wins. This is an obscene, transparent, blatantly partisan change in the rules, designed to help Republican presidential candidates.
We should be suspicious any time one political party unilaterally tries to directly affect the outcome of future elections. Republicans in Harrisburg want to award electoral votes according to congressional districts because they are in control of the current redistricting process. They want to be able to decide how many votes to guarantee future Republican presidential candidates.
The redistricting process is likely to create 12 solidly Republican districts and six Democratic ones. This assures any Republican presidential candidate a clear majority of the state's electoral votes. This means that your vote in the presidential election will be meaningless. This plan will also end Pennsylvania's status as a battleground state and will make us irrelevant to presidential campaigns. Why should candidates come here when we will already know what the final electoral vote count will be? It is distressing that our governor is pushing a plan to make Pennsylvania matter less in national politics.
Notice that Republicans in control of states that GOP presidential candidates usually win show absolutely no interest in changing their rules. We won't be seeing this proposal in Texas or Mississippi. It is only states that Republicans currently control, but which tend to vote Democratic in national elections, that will see the rules altered. Any change to our Electoral College should be adopted uniformly across the nation, with buy-in from both red and blue states so there is no effort to rig future elections.
The governor gives lip service to improving our electoral system, but this bill has nothing to do with good government. It is simply a partisan power-grab. If Corbett was really interested in improving Pennsylvania's electoral structure, he would support bipartisan proposals such as early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or a national popular vote. But he opposes all of these.
Instead, the governor supports this bill, as well as additional legislation that would make it harder for people who disproportionately do not vote Republican to vote, such as requiring photo ID at the polls. This will disenfranchise millions of the poor, the elderly, and those who live in cities.
At times, Democrats have controlled the executive and legislative branches of state government. They could have passed anything they wished, and when it comes to substantive policy they often did. But nobody ever attempted to abuse their temporary control to fix future elections. As the prime sponsor of redistricting reform, I find it disheartening that this proposal will make gerrymandering an even more entrenched part of the system.
Elections in a democracy are sacred. Changing the rules created by our founders in order to benefit one political party is profoundly wrong. It desecrates our history and is a repugnant attack on the very core of our nationhood. Corbett's endorsement of this profanity brings to mind the famous words of Joseph Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy during another attack on the basic structure of our democracy: "Have you no sense of decency?"
This post first appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Of Trifectas and the Electoral College
Electoral college switch could hurt Obama in 2012
Electoral college complications
Pennsylvania Republicans Shouldn't Toy with the Electoral College
Pennsylvania GOP proposes change to electoral vote distribution
Ed Rendell Less Than Thrilled With New Electoral College Proposal
Evidently the calculation was made that the optics are unfavorable in a critical election year, even though PA copying the Nebraska/Maine model is 100% legal and constitutional.
The RNC must be so sure of a landslide victory in 2012, that they’re willing to potentially forfeit the certain pick-up of 12 electoral votes in PA (out of 20), so they can win the entire country.
I hope the GOP leadership is calculating correctly. Maybe then we can flip all the blue states to the Neb/Maine model on the same day in 2013.
Is tha also how Kucinich in Ohio is out.
G. D. Repubican
Are you familiar with the drive to elect the president of the USA by the popular vote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Several states have pledged that once enough states with enough electoral votes to choose the president adopt this program by passing laws awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, then the president of the USA will be selected by pure popular vote.
If you note the states that have passed it, they're heavily blue. Why, because urban areas tend to vote Democrat. The more population, the more urban areas, the more Democrat presidents. Despite this I think its a good idea. What's more democratic than selecting the president of the USA by the popular vote. Should we change and give each state a single electoral college vote? We'd never have another Democrat president.
Its a debatable whether this is "good", but I think its at least defendable. It just happens to benefit the GOP in this particular state.
Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system and not reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania.
The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state as a whole. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.
Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania congressional districts were competitive.
In Maine, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In Nebraska, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) two-thirds of the state were irrelevant.
When votes matter, candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
But to day poplular oro electoral vote does not much of an issued. 2000 and 2004 were both very suspecious with no computer security at ALL on votes, recorded votes, etc.
I would like to see Internet with DB Security like Bank Cards for all voting and get rid of the local ballating and counting. Beyond just the voting, I would like to see Policy Voting. Like No War, No Tax Cuts, etc.
I do not trust either party today. Crony Capitalism abounds. And I think Polls asking what we think by Polling 1000 is ridiculous. Also I do not like Think Tanks paid by Stock Trader wealth advising Congress. That should be university and skilled professionals. Not the retired government workers in MIC, Energy, etc.deluting our vote even more
My 2 cents, beyond Fore Father Fundementals and Free Enterpise mean Competition and Anti-Monopoly and a balance of Capital to Labor, etc.
I am a democrate but am conservative to Individual Right and Free Choice. Not for Marrage Law changes, unless you creating a Child Protection Law and abondan Marriage all together. I do not want the Courts into Sex Love or Sex Love in the Courts. If you want out of the Closet stay in the Bedroom and not on the street
I heard NO Democrat complain about the change in Massachusets after Kennedy's death to allow the Democratic governor to appoint a successor... so they could pass ACA.
What makes that incident truly outrageous compared to what is happening in PA is that the Democrats in Mass changed the law a scant 2 or 3 years earlier specifically so that Mitt Romney could not appoint a GOP senator if John Kerry won the 2004 election.
Seriously, do you guys have any intellectual honesty? Why is it only inflammatory rhetoric, voter disenfranchisement or racism when the GOP is behind it? Have you no dignity sir, the PA change is a lot more honorable and defendable than the Mass shenanigans.
This means that 50 state legislatures control the rules. So if the Pennsylvania legislature wants to change the rules to the same system currently used in Nebraska and Maine, that’s their business.
The net result of Pennsylvania's new electoral law + GOP-controlled redistricting + PA losses in the decennial apportionment means that Democrats will never receive more than eight electoral votes from PA, with the rest going to Republicans. And it gets even better, because Republicans are considering enacting similar laws in states like WI, MI, OH.
Democrats only have 20 “blue states” to begin with, and if this many states are turned “purple” in terms of splitting electoral votes, Democrats may never win another presidential election.
Translation: the urban PA population will no longer be able to eliminate the importance of suburban and rural PA voters.
"We should be suspicious any time one political party unilaterally tries to directly affect the outcome of future elections."
Both parties do that every chance they get. Its called gerrymandering.
"If Corbett was really interested in improving Pennsylvania's electoral structure, he would support... a national popular vote. "
So this is an "obscene, transparent, blatantly partisan change in the rules, designed to help Republican presidential candidates" but changing to a popular vote wouldn't be the same thing but for the Democrats?
I don't like the change. I think it is a blatant attempt to help the Republican candidate in the 2012 election. Its ugly, but hey its legal and its politics. Can we please drop the faux moral outrage?
The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state or district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states or districts.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
The GOP would alter over two centuries of PA history to gain partisan advantage with their current political control over redistricting, and in so doing, corrupt PA's participation in national politics forever.
If considered, it must be voted down. If passed, it must be protestede in the streets of Harrisburg until these thieves relent.
It is no small insult to our state's populus, and to our nation, that Corbett would attempt the absolute dismemberment of the electoral process in the very state where our nation's constitution was born.
Stand down, Governor Corbett, or the demonstrations that will play out in Harrisburg will make those in Madison, WI last Winter look like child's play!
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
Doesn't it inconvenience them when they have to show ID to cash their Social Security checks or to board a plane? I believe this is the pot calling the kettle black.
This is all that is going on here. Most states follow an all-or-nothing approach to the electoral college, meaning that if a candidate wins the majority of the popular vote, they get all the electoral votes from the state. And because a majority of the population that votes, especially Democratic, come from cities, it leaves the rural areas without a voice in the end. By giving electoral voices out by district instead of a winner-take-all approach, it gives the voice back to the rural areas. So, yes, it does favor the GoP, only because this ensures that the Democrats can't lock in a state based on urban areas. But it is by no means "undemocratic", unless you mean it is "undemocraticparty".
I agree that a popular vote for the president is desirable. Now what? The president cannot pass any new "good" laws or overturn any past "bad" laws. Only Congress can do that and Congress has no constitutional requirement to pass ANY laws.
I believe a more fundamental problems is to be found in Congress. See -
REFORM CONGRESS - SAVE OURSELVES
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-hough-jones/reform-congress-save-ours_b_959207.html
Sincerely,
Daniel Hough Jones
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19),
Once again fans of party A or B attack or defend the new gaming strategy based on advantage to their party. If one really wanted to make ALL votes count why not scrap the electoral college and have presidents elected by the total who voted for them in the whole country - not this idiotic "carried the state" foolishness just because an elite of 220 years ago wanted to keep the presidency for themselves.