Posted on 09/15/2011 8:08:41 AM PDT by wmfights
“Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote…
“[I]f the GOP presidential nominee carries the GOP-leaning districts but Obama carries the state, the GOP nominee would get 12 electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, but Obama would only get eight—six for winning the blue districts, and two (representing the state’s two senators) for winning the state. Since Obama would lose 12 electoral votes relative to the winner-take-all baseline, this would have an effect equivalent to flipping a medium-size winner-take-all state—say, Washington, which has 12 electoral votes—from blue to red. And Republicans wouldn’t even have to do any extra campaigning or spend any extra advertising dollars to do it…
“It doesn’t necessarily end there. After their epic sweep of state legislative and gubernatorial races in 2010, Republicans also have total political control of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, three other big states that traditionally go Democratic and went for Obama in 2008. Implementing a Pennsylvania-style system in those three places—in Ohio, for example, Democrats anticipate controlling just 4 or 5 of the state’s 16 congressional districts—could offset Obama wins in states where he has expanded the electoral map, like Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, or Virginia. ‘If all these Rust Belt folks get together and make this happen, that could be really dramatic,’ says Carolyn Fiddler, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which coordinates state political races for the Dems.
“Democrats would not be able to retaliate. The only states that John McCain won where Dems control both houses of the state legislature are Arkansas and West Virginia. West Virginia is too small for splitting the electoral votes to have much effect. That leaves Arkansas, another small state—and one where McCain won every district handily in 2008.”
***
“[Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic] Pileggi sees it differently. ‘I’m getting more complaints from Republicans!’ he says. ‘Some Republicans believe 2012 is going to be the year we win the popular vote in Pennsylvania again.’ He is thinking only of the commonwealth. ‘This would be good for Pennsylvania,’ Pileggi says. ‘The results would reflect which candidate won the popular vote. Is there a better way to closely conform the electoral vote to the popular vote? I’m open to suggestions.’…
“Take a look at Florida, a swing state that voted for Obama in 2008. He won 52 percent of the vote, but only 10 of the state’s 25 districts. Had the Republican-run legislature and Gov. Charlie Crist rammed through a vote-split plan—and they easily could have—McCain would have been rejected by the voters of Florida, then grabbed 15 of their 27 electoral votes.
“Thus the full-scale Democratic freak-out about the Pileggi plan. Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin are all run by Republicans, Democrats point out, who could ram these plans through if they wanted. So far, none of them have made any moves toward doing so. But if every state had implemented the Pileggi plan in 2008, Obama would have won 307 electoral votes instead of 365.”
***
“The heat that would come on Pennsylvania GOP legislators would make the Wisconsin protests look like a tersely-worded letter of disapproval. Some Republicans are likely to be wary of a proposal that appears to ‘changing the rules after the game has started.’
“But most of these states have a simple political geography: vast swaths of Republican-leaning rural and sometimes suburban districts balanced by, and sometimes outweighted, by densely-packed, deeply Democratic urban districts. It’s not surprising that frustrated Republicans would tire of seeing their votes rendered moot by high (some would argue suspiciously high) turnout in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. often gives Democrats the edge in these key states.
“The prize for the audacious move would be enormous for Republicans: They would establish, arguably, a GOP lock on the presidency until the country’s demographics and political geography changed.”
***
“The result of all this would be that presidential elections lose a great deal of their legitimacy.
“It would be entirely possible for a Republican to win the 2012 presidential election despite losing the popular vote by a solid margin and losing states containing a solid majority of electoral votes. Democrats would likely retaliate the next time they had a chance. Close presidential elections would wind up being decided by all sorts of odd chance events, rather than, you know, who wins the most votes. Yes, the current electoral college system does allow split results such as what happened in 2000, but that’s very different: clear, stable rules make it likely that everyone will accept the results.
“In short, it’s an absolutely outrageous plan, terrible for democracy and terrible for Pennsylvania. But extremely good for the short-term prospects of Republican presidential candidates.”
***
“On a policy level, I agree with James that this proposal may actually be a good idea.
“First of all, it maintains the Electoral College’s purpose of balancing large states against small ones, and regions against regions while at the same time addressing one of the biggest criticisms of the way that we elect Presidents. By tying at least one electoral vote in each state to a Congressional District, the proposal would put nearly every state into play in a Presidential election. Yes, the proposal would benefit Republicans in Pennsylvania, but it would likely benefit Democrats in states like Florida and Texas. In the end, the benefits would probably balance themselves out across the nation, and candidates would be forced to run a campaign that addresses the country as a whole, rather than one that merely focuses on a few big states.
“Second, the Congressional district allocation method has been tried before, and works. Both Nebraska and Maine have had this system in effect for several years and it’s worked just fine.
“Finally, it is completely constitutional.”
***
“According to our calculations, in 2008, President Obama won 52.7 percent of the national vote, but with his 365 electoral votes, he won 67.8 percent of the electoral college. But if every state in the country had used the congressional-district apportionment system in 2008, Obama would have won 301 electoral votes (242 districts, plus 56 for winning 28 states, plus 3 for D.C.), which is 55.4 percent of the electoral college. So in 2008, the congressional-district apportionment system would have more accurately reflected the popular vote, and it would have helped John McCain.
“In 2004, President Bush won 50.7 percent of the popular vote, and his 286 electoral votes represented 53.15 percent of the electoral college. Had every state in the country used the congressional-district apportionment system in 2004, Bush would have won 317 electoral votes (255 districts, plus 62 for winning 31 states), or 58.9 percent of the electoral college. So in 2004, the congressional-district apportionment system would have less accurately reflected the popular vote, and it would have helped … George W. Bush.
“Either way, splitting up electoral votes by congressional district helps the Republican. That’s because Democratic districts are more Democratic than Republican districts are Republican…
“The only way for the electoral college to accurately reflect the national popular vote is if the electoral college is directly tied to the popular vote.”
Yeah - I’m ok with this - it gives balance between states and people (2 per state based on total state vote and 1 per district). I’ve always felt illinois and ohio should do this due to the dem bastions in the major cities. Same goes for Michigan and wisconsin. Basically all the districts outside the major metro areas get swamped out by a few districts. That being said the states get to decide things on their own as to how they’ll allocate - there are a few where it isn’t all or nothing already.
Just the opposite. It is the best way to isolate the impact of vote fraud.
The proposal in Pennsylvania is to allocate electoral votes by congressional district, not all to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.
No, just the opposite. It limits the impact of the vote fraud we have in large urban areas. What they are doing is awarding 2 EV to who ever gets a majority in the state and the rest are awarded on the basis of the congressional districts won. In the popular vote approach the impact of a couple million fraudulent votes from the large urban areas will sway close elections.
This is actually a good idea for Republicans to implement. That being the case and Republicans being idiots they won’t.
If they want to change it, they’re free to do so, but the original intent of the Electoral College was to ensure that “mob rule” and a simple majority didn’t install a president. Tinkering with this system means we creep away from “We the People” and more towards a socialist democracy where 51% means a win.
Actually, the Constitution is silent on the manner is which the electors are chosen, except to say that it is up to the state legislatures. They could choose to allocate them by congressional district, winner take all, proportional allocations, or they could just have the legislature award the electoral votes without regard to the popular vote at all.
If they have half the courage of Gov. Walker and the Pubs in WI they will pass it. I think we are seeing some real tough young turks emerge at the local level.
No! Just the opposite. What is happening now is states are dominated by large urban areas where vote fraud is rampant. What they are proposing is taking the Electoral College to the local level. A city can not dominate the entire state. 2 EV's will be awarded based on statewide popular vote, but the rest of the EV will be based on CD's won.
You claim to be conservative, yet every conservative idea is met with your disdain.
The electoral college votes are structured so that each congress critter's district equals one vote and each senator gets one vote.
The PA plan is exactly what the founder's designed, one electoral college vote per congress critter's represented voters.
Get your own copy of the Constitution and read it {in your case for the first time}.
“This just balances that, and gives folks in “flyover country” representation”
The system as a whole gives folks in flyover country representation. However votes are apportioned within flyover states is irrelevant to that. What this would do is balance out the equivalent of flyover country and the coasts within flyover states. In other words, it would give the periphery power over the centers of population. But that’s different than what you’re talking about.
“The electoral college votes are structured so that each congress critter’s district equals one vote and each senator gets one vote.”
No they aren’t. The numbers work out that way, of course, but that doesn’t mean one district, say, could dominate an enitre state’s votes.
There may be some merit to this idea after further study, but the process of extreme gerrymandering must also be addressed before any implementation.
The electoral college is NOT the problem here; the issue is with re-districting and the gerrymandering that happens therein.
The Dems have gerrymandered districts in most Liberal bastions such as CA and NY, and thus, they can defraud the districts and the state. Those districts always vote on the Left, and they deserve what they get.
My home district in FL is gerrymandered in a very strange way to include large urban areas, thus that district always goes Dem. Fix the district, fix the problem.
I doubt this idea will go anywhere since it will ultimately help the GOP.
One good thing is that it would limit the damage from vote fraud in the inner cities.
You are defeating your own argument and you don't even know it. The truly small states, with only 1 Congressional District, will still have 3 EC votes, and will award those votes in exactly the same way, winner takes all. While every other state, with 2 Congressional Districts and up, will all lose a bit of whole-state power, as their EC votes can now be split.
So lets take California, or New York, or Texas, as examples of large high population states. As winner takes all, they are very important. They are also fairly solid in one direction or another. But those three states wield an enormous EC advantage. Split the vote by Congressional District, and the EC weight of the 3 EC states remains the same, while the EC weight of the large states is reduced. So small states will not become irrelevant. On the contrary, they will gain EC power!
Right now, Presidential campaigns are waged largely in the swing states. Under the new plan, they would be waged in the much larger number of swing districts, covering far more States.
This better localizes the vote too. A red voter in San Diego who feels his vote is a waste because CA always goes blue, can now see his districts vote go red! Of course, that also works the other way around for blue voters in Texas.
The devil in me would like to see this system installed in as many blue states as is possible given the election of 2010, while maintaining winner takes all in the solid red states!
It is true that the Electoral College was a compromise that was designed to give the smaller states more of a say in the election of the President than their population would justify. But the practical effect of that has changed over the years. In the election of 1800, the electoral votes of the smallest states (RI, OH) were each about 1/7th of the electoral votes of the largest state (VA). Now, the electoral votes of the smallest states (WY, AK, etc) are 1/20th of the electoral votes of the largest state.
As the size of Congress has grown, the additional influence given to smaller states by the two electoral votes for senators has diminished. If the sole purpose of the electoral college was to balance the influence of large states and small states, then the formula would need to be adjusted - perhaps by allocating 3 electors per senator rather than 1. That would increase the representation of the smallest states by 133%, but it would only increase the representation of the largest state by 7%.
After the last few presidential elections someone puts out a map of the U.S. showing the election results by county. I’ve never understood the utility of such a map as we don’t elect the president by county. I think a map broken down by congressional district would be more interesting.
California has always been a winner-take-all state. There is a proposal to join the multi-state national popular vote initiative but it hasn't passed the legislature. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that currently apportion their electors by congressional district.
While your statement is true, how is this tinkering with the EC? The EC will function EXACTLY like it has for the past 200+ years? The only thing that changes is the way a state divvies up EC votes...which by the way is EXACTLY what the Constitution prescribes (Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment detail the EC).
This is a state’s rights issue that, yet again, the Liberals in America want to step on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.