Posted on 10/11/2011 5:43:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
Republicans supposedly revere the Constitution, but in its birthplace, Pennsylvania, they are contemplating a subversion of the Framers' institutional architecture. Their ploy — partisanship masquerading as altruism about making presidential elections more "democratic" — will weaken resistance to an even worse change being suggested.
Pennsylvania's GOP-controlled Legislature may pass, and the Republican governor promises to sign, legislation ending the state's practice — shared by 47 other states — of allocating all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.
Pennsylvania would join Maine and Nebraska in allocating one vote to the winner in each congressional district, with the two remaining votes going to the statewide popular vote winner.
The 2012 GOP candidate might lose the statewide vote but carry, say, nine of the 18 congressional districts, cutting Barack Obama's yield to 11 electoral votes. But if the Republican candidate carries nine of Pennsylvania's 18 districts, and the statewide vote — Obama's Pennsylvania poll numbers are poor — Republicans will have cost themselves nine electoral votes, which would be condign punishment.
Not since 1988 has a Republican carried Pennsylvania, a state described as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama in between. Incongruous political cultures coexist in many states, so the temptation to which the Pennsylvania GOP may succumb could become a national contagion.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
What you have are "states" and all that's being proposed is proportional or party list voting rather than "first past the post" voting ~ for a state.
I don't know about those folks in Pennsylvania, but I just couldn't take any condign punishment.
One of the impacts of this change is that stuffing the ballot would affect only one congressional district rather than the whole state.
And Philadelphia is a good reason to do it. 103% of registered voters voted.Bah, humbug.
and we see another step toward the loss of our republic...
Last I saw, there are only two states were the trial lawyers give more money to the Republicans than to the Democrats:
wait for it....
Alaska and Pennsylvania.
Max dittos, kimo sabe!
I hope Ohio does the same thing, to eliminate the fraud-weighted outcome here. Ohio would go from Blue to Red overnight.
Agree.
I would only add that we should have a much larger House of Reps and therefore, many more electoral districts. The Constitution specifies no more than one rep per 30,000. We are near one rep per 700,000.
Illinois should do it also, my vote is wasted every election!
This was a bad idea when the left was proposing it. It is hard to believe anyone who is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States would even consider this. Of course, it was we the people who amended the constitution in 1913 to elect senators by popular vote instead of the high house method of selection by the state legislatures.
What we will eventually amend ourselves into is a pure democracy, or rule by the mob.
Keep your powder dry
I don’t understand why the Republicans would want to do this when the odds are they’ll win PA this time.
Enacting this proportionate voting benefits the loser of the state.
I don’t understand why the Republicans would want to do this when the odds are they’ll win PA this time.
Enacting this proportionate voting benefits the loser of the state.
“Illinois should do it also, my vote is wasted every election!”
Mu sympathies. Once upon a time I lived in New Orleans. My favorite candidates there usually got about 3 or 4 percent of the vote. I understand.
Is that worse than “consarned” punishment?
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says, "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." That is to say a congressional district must have at least 30,000. It's a minimum number, not a maximum number.
Will’s being more than a bit melodramatic.
Madison wanted the President elected by the House where, if the electoral college fails to elect a president, the choice still resides.
The constitutional convention wanted the President to be separate and equal from the House so they created an electoral college to give the president as much popular legitimacy as the House. In that regard, the bill is right in line with the framer’s intent. Winner take all selection of electors is a state by state decision.
The fact is that there are several precedents where a random state elector went against the state's popular vote. These quixotic individuals actually should be rec ognized and honored for upholding the "real" founders' intent, which was that the electoral college would be real representatives, really elected by the people or the state legislature, to cast the state's votes for president.
I believe the State of Tennessee held out until the election of Andrew Jackson by empowering the state legislature to choose electors. The popular vote was possibly influential but legally irrelevant.
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.