More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sen. Daylin Leach

GET UPDATES FROM Sen. Daylin Leach
 

Thank You, Rick Santorum

Posted: 09/22/11 04:55 PM ET

I don't have many regrets in life. I've never climbed a mountain, but I've seen people doing it on TV. I have stopped to smell the roses. They smell awful. I haven't dedicated myself to a life of serving others, but I have dedicated my life to serving myself, and I am "others" to other people. So that's good.

However, there is one thing I have come to regret recently (yesterday, to be exact). I haven't spent nearly enough time thanking former Senator Rick Santorum.

When I truly introspect, there are reasons (OK, more like excuses) I haven't thanked Rick more. I mean, sure most of the stuff he stands for, on a scale of 1-100, 100 being the most evil, lands at about 345. But I'm not sure even that's really fair.

For example, I used to think it was horrific of him to compare loving, monogamous gay relations to "man on dog." But then I found out that Rick refers to welfare spending as "man on bison" and teaching evolution to "man on un-evolved monkey" and gun control as "man on dude without a gun" and tax increases as "man on Grover Norquist," which is actually quite disturbing. Rick just likes the whole "man on..." meme.

What made me really want to thank Rick yesterday was his most honest, righteous and true statement on Governor Corbett's scheme to rig future presidential elections by apportioning electoral votes by congressional district. First a little background:

Corbett's scheme is designed to ensure that his party always gets the majority of Pennsylvania's electoral votes. You see, Democrats have won PA the last five presidential elections. But Governor Corbett has brilliantly figured out the Democrat's dastardly and dishonest method of winning. They get more votes. (I told you it was shocking.)

People in parts of the state that tend to vote Democratic sometimes out vote those parts of the state that tend to vote Republican. Having more votes, they then claim that they should win the election. I think you see the problem here. This makes Republicans who voted for the losing candidate sad. And Corbett wishes to change the rules so as to reduce such sadness. "Turn that frown upside down!" he says. We shall guarantee that you win, and are not forced to come in second simply because you got fewer votes.

I would note parenthetically that when the people from places which tend to vote Republican out vote those that vote Democratic and say ... elect Corbett Governor: that's fine! His people are happy! And the people in Philadelphia who lose? Their sadness seems to trouble Governor Corbett less. Sadness at losing an election is just different in Venango County than it is in Philly.

In any event, Governor Corbett's plan is essentially affirmative action for Republican electors. Even if their candidate loses the state by 10 points, they are still guaranteed a 12-8 victory in the electoral college. But Governor Corbett claims "this is not about Republicans and Democrats" and "I'm not thinking about who will benefit."

Of course, it just so happens that his plan benefits his party's presidential candidates. Apparently Governor Corbett was utterly oblivious to this. He may not know yet, so please ask him to sit down if you plan to tell him. The shock might cause him to get the vapors.

I can relate. Once I was playing a chess tournament (reason #277 why I didn't get a date in high school) and I was losing. So I thought I'd light my opponent's hair on fire, just to lighten the mood, and then smash the chess board with a mallet. I had no idea that his forfeiture of the game followed by his months-long hospitalization would benefit me. Sometimes you are just lucky that way.

Anyway, back to Rick. Yesterday he was in DC when a reporter asked him if he supported the governor's electoral-college scheme. "I sure do!" he said, "The current system is kind of like man-on-Himalayan Bog Turtle..." Then he went on to say what everyone in the world already knows:

"Certainly, from the standpoint of a Republican, it's a winner," Santorum said. "Republicans will come out ahead in Pennsylvania in every election. The way Democrats win, they have two big cities with huge concentrations of voters -- and then overwhelm the rest of the state."

(This can be found at Politics PA.)

Let's examine this a bit. Rick's reason for supporting this scheme is laid out right there. It will be a "winner" from the stand-point of the Republican Party, which is clearly the basis on which we should be writing the rules of elections. In fact, Rick observes, "Republicans will come out ahead in Pennsylvania in every (Presidential) election." There it is. The entire purpose behind this proposal.

It is interesting that Rick would support the bill for this reason. He spends a lot of time with the Tea Party folks who wear their colonial garb and talk about their love of the founders and our beautiful system of democracy. I don't recall Jefferson and Madison and Adams talking a lot about rigging elections so the outcome is preordained.

Although, in fairness, if you go back to the original hand-written source materials for the federalist papers, you'll see that whereas it was commonly thought that Thomas Jefferson wrote about "preserving the Republic," it was actually "preserving the Republicans."

So now we know the truth, and the truth shall set us free. We can only wonder when Tom Corbett will level with the people of Pennsylvania. In the meantime, thank you, Rick Santorum. Thank you.

 

Follow Sen. Daylin Leach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/daylinleach

 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mvy
07:19 PM on 09/22/2011
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin recent polls.

The 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), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdicti­ons possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPo­pularVote
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mvy
07:18 PM on 09/22/2011
A survey of 800 Pennsylvan­ia voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republican­s, and 76% among independen­ts.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

The National Popular Vote bill would 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 and 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, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mvy
07:17 PM on 09/22/2011
Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by district would magnify the worst features of the 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 whole state. 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 districts were competitive.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored)

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, 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) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.

When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mvy
07:17 PM on 09/22/2011
Republican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits of the congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party just adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. While in Pennsylvania, Republican legislators insist we must change from the winner-take-all method to the district method.

And up in Maine, the only other state beside Nebraska to use the district method, Mike Tipping reports on Republicans, also newly in the majority like their counterparts in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, will require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Now they want to pass a majority-only plan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dzymzlzy
05:11 PM on 09/22/2011
You had me at "affirmative action for Republican electors". Put it on a bumper sticker!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mass maritimer
liberty for all
04:14 PM on 09/22/2011
That's my local senator and he's awesome.....

I don't recall Jefferson and Madison and Adams talking a lot about rigging elections so the outcome is preordained.

HEAR HEAR