Posted on 09/13/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Vigilanteman
Republicans in charge of the General Assembly want to change how the state hands out its electoral votes, a move that could reshape the national electoral strategies of future presidents and diminish Pennsylvania's role in choosing the country's leader.
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi wants to allocate the 20 electoral votes Pennsylvania will have in the next election according to who wins each of 18 congressional districts, plus two more for whoever wins the statewide popular vote, rather than the winner-take-all system the state now uses.
. . .
Some analysts said it wouldn't be worth it for campaigns to spend much time or cash in Pennsylvania for a gain of three or four electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.
"It sure would hurt the television advertising in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia television markets," said Democratic consultant Steve Murphy, who worked on former Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential campaign.
Asked whether Pileggi's proposal would change Pennsylvania's status as one of the country's biggest swing states, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said, "There's no doubt about it."
Still, he's a fan.
"We think it has a lot of positive merit," said Turzai, R-Bradford Woods. "It's going to be carefully vetted (in the Senate). I myself am very positive."
Others, not so much.
"It's crazy," said Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York. "If every state did this, there's an argument could be made that it would mean better grassroots politics. For us alone to do it is insane."
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
One thing is for certain: It would change the entire presidential electoral vote calculus. No longer would black panthers outside polling places with nightsticks, fake voters in Philadelphia and dead voters in Pittsburgh be enough to ensure an automatic 20 plus votes in the Democrat column here.
the highly disproportionate influence of a very, very liberal Philadelphia is one of the biggest problems we have in this state
This might lessen the influence of the urban centers...which would be a VERY good thing.
I like this idea. It definitely would dilute the distortions of the Phil/Pitt voting anomalies. And if they spend less ad money in PA, less stupid commercials during the campaign.
I favor this nation wide. The problem with this idea is that one state doing this by itself decreases its clout in the electoral college.
I would rather see the clout of the state be decreased to increase the clout of the average voter outside of Phil/Pitt.
It would eliminate the rationale for vote fraud in Philly for Presidential elections. The Dem candidate would win in Philly without need for fraud. This would reduce the relevance of Philly’s fraud machine, and mean less money to them. I like it.
Correct. The rest of us in this Commonwealth can generally outvote the relatively small cesspools of corruption in Pittsburgh and Erie. But the stench of Philadelphia is too much to overcome.
This is a far better idea than what some of the blue states have done, which is to award the EV’s to the NATIONAL popular vote winner.
In fact, this idea gives us the best of both sides of the argument - helps people’s votes count more strongly in states where their party is generally the losing party, yet preserves the integrity of the Electoral College and keeps it at the level of the state, and not the nation.
PA would probably be about as red as Ohio or Virginia (meaning often but not always GOP) if you took just Philly out of the equation.
It’s a much more proportional system of populating the legislative body that is the Electoral College. The population centers have far too much sway.
In fact, this idea gives us the best of both sides of the argument - helps people’s votes count more strongly in states where their party is generally the losing party, yet preserves the integrity of the Electoral College and keeps it at the level of the state, and not the nation.
Absolutely wrong! It just encourages more voter fraud in the cess pools. It would just be a national popular vote. I don't want my vote canceled by some cemetary voter in Chicago. The electoral college is like a ship with many water tight comparments. A vote in Chicago does not affect the counting of my vote in south Texas. Several compartments could be compromised without changing the center of gravity or sinking the ship. A direct election is like a ship with no compartments. One leak in the hull can sink the ship.
If this were to happen in California, it would mean the end of Democrat presidential hopeful for the next several cycles... Here’s why:
1. Assuming that the statewide vote tally would remain about 56/44, the GOP candidate would get about 20 additional electoral votes, as much as Pennsylvania and almost as much as Florida.
2. Democrat candidates would have to actually campaign and spend money in CA, not just raise funds here. That would drain funds used in the current swing states.
3. OC, the Inland Empire, San Diego and the Central Valley would be able to offset the crazies in LA and the Bay Area.
But PA as a whole would lose out if the other big states don't do that. What's interesting is that Democrats in Florida had proposed such a system prior to 2000. If they had implemented it, Gore would have won the election without any recount. If such a system had been implemented nationwide in 2000, Bush would have won in the electoral college. It's also quite possible that Bush would have gotten a majority in the popular vote due to decreased benefits to political machines from voter fraud in big cities.
But those are small fairly homogeneous states that have only very rarely ever actually split their votes. It's the larger states that would tend to split their electoral votes.
What are you saying is wrong?
Sounds like you're criticizing the NPV initiative, which is stupid, but the above post wasn't advocating NPV.
This Pennsylvania plan is a great deal for America & conservatives.
Exactly, it's a great plan either nationwide or in states that generally vote Democrat for president, such as Pennsylvania.
Yes, but fraud in a cess pool would limit the effects on the electoral vote to that single cess pool and not the entire state in which it occurs. PA is conservative outside Philly (and to a lesser degree, Pittsburgh).
Exactly! Voter fraud occurs in places where one party has a huge majority (i.e. Dade County), so this plan would make that sort of fraud irrelevant to the overall outcome of the state electoral votes. Massive fraud in one district will only win you one district.
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.