Posted on 09/16/2011 2:32:22 PM PDT by Steelfish
Pennsylvania Ponders Electoral College Revamp Would choosing electors by congressional district help or hurt the Republican nominee?
By Tom Curry 9/16/2011
Democracy may get a whole new look when it comes to presidential politics in 2012. The Electoral College will still bring the next commander in chief to the White House, but tweaks to the system could change the rules of the game.
After the 2000 election recount drama, polling showed that most Americans wanted to replace the electoral vote system with direct popular election of the president.
But Americans generally don't pay much attention to the mechanics of how they choose the president.
Politicians do pay attention, especially when presidential elections seem to be shaping up as close ones. S witch to a Maine-Nebraska system That explains the flurry of excitement in the political world over a Republican proposal to scrap Pennsylvania’s winner-take-all system of awarding its 20 electoral votes and instead allocate 18 of them based on the vote for president in each of the state’s congressional districts, 12 of which are now held by Republican members. The two other electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who won the most votes statewide.
The proposal, sponsored by Republican Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, and backed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, would give Pennsylvania the same method of allocating electoral votes used in Maine and Nebraska.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
They don’t need to change the system, they need to stop the rampant voter fraud that has existed for decades.
Has anyone else noticed a deafening quiet from the usual scrap-the-electoral-college leftists now that the stuffing is falling out of their scarecrow candidate?
I wish every state would adopt proportional allocation of electoral votes. It would benefit the GOP. For instance, here in Maryland very few counties are blue. But the state is overwhelmed by a few counties.
If the ending of “winner take all” would reduce the number of visits by Presidential candidates (especially by the POTUS in 2012) local governments and their taxpayers would breathe a sigh of relief.
The police overtime for candidate security details stretched local budgets to the breaking point in 2008. And that was without a sitting President as one of the candidates.
It's not perfect, of course, since we need to have an odd number of EVs, and it's open to gerrymandering.
What they are proposing is about the most efeective way of isolating and limiting the damage of vote fraud. In the inner city congressional districts that the Rats control they can't commit voter fraud and affect more than 3 EV, the district and the two determined by the statewide vote. As the system works now, they can grab all 18 EV through vote fraud in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
This is a backdoor way of doing away with the electoral college without amending the constitution.
What about rounding errors? You think the parties run to court now...
I disagree. It’s a more logical way of assigning electors. You still end up with electors who vote in the electoral college.
As the Founders planned, reduce the power of the federal government so that it almost doesn’t matter who gets elected.
That's what the politicians want you to believe. Winner takes all means that presidential candidates have to appeal to the majority of the voters across the entire state, not just in a few select districts. If the US did direct popular vote for the POTUS, prospective candidates would only have to 'listen' or appeal to the population of 8 states (according to 2010 census). The other 42 states are just SOL. The Electoral College system means that candidates must campaign (and/or appeal) to many more states than just the most populous states. This counties Founding Fathers had a stroke of genius when they came up with that.
That's what the politicians want you to believe. Winner takes all means that presidential candidates have to appeal to the majority of the voters across the entire state, not just in a few select districts. If the US did direct popular vote for the POTUS, prospective candidates would only have to 'listen' or appeal to the population of 8 states (according to 2010 census). The other 42 states are just SOL. The Electoral College system means that candidates must campaign (and/or appeal) to many more states than just the most populous states. This counties Founding Fathers had a stroke of genius when they came up with that.
“As the Founders planned, reduce the power of the federal government so that it almost doesn’t matter who gets elected.”
+1
“If the ending of “winner take all” would reduce the number of visits by Presidential candidates”
We want them to visit us so that they can listen to us.
If every state went to proportional allocation of electors candidates would have to campaign in every state instead of ignoring 42 states and just campaigning in the 8 states that are in play.
Other states do it, why not us?
Sounds great
I don’t think the founders ever imaged that whole states would be held hostage by one city. Especially where voter fraud in that one city can change the whole election
Though for Pennsylvania, they should break it in 3. Pitts, Philly and the rest
They should do this for New York, California and Illinois also
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.